LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


EIGHT  YEARS  IN  CONGRESS, 


FROM 


1857-1865. 


MEMOIR  AND  SPEECHES, 


BY 


SAMUEL  S.  COX, 


"  It  is  advisable  to  exceed  in  lenity  rather  than  in  severity ;  to  banish  but  few  rather  than  many ; 
and  to  leave  them  their  estates,  instead  of  making  a  vast  number  of  confiscations.  Under  pretence 
of  avenging  the  republic's  cause,  the  avengers  would  establish  tyranny.  The  business  is  not  to  destroy 
the  rebel,  but  the  rebellion.  They  ought  to  return  as  quickly  as  possible  into  the  usual  track  of  gov 
ernment,  in  which  every  one  is  protected  by  the  laws,  and  no  one  injured.1' — Montesquieu. 


NEW  YORK  : 
D.   APPLETON   AND    COMPANY, 

448  &  445  BROADWAY, 
1865. 


EKTBRED  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1865,  by 

D.  APPLETON    &    COMPANY, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


TO 


MY  CONSTITUENTS  IN  OHIO, 

BY      WHOSE       REQUEST       THIS       VOLUME       IS       PREPARED, 

Jft  is  f  nsmlxetr, 

AS    A    TOKEN    OF    ESTEEM    AND    GEATITUDE. 


IN  penning  this  inscription,  from  a  distant  city,  aloof  from  old 
associations,  and  devoted  to  new  pursuits,  memories  of  you  throng, 
cheer,  and  sweeten  my  thoughts.     Not  only  do  I  recall  the  kindly 
courtesies  and  personal  attachments  at  your  firesides  and  meetings, 
but  the  unwavering  trust  you  reposed,  from  the  first  effort  which 
I  made  against  sectionalism  to  the  present  time,  when  the  conse 
quences  of  that  sectionalism,  so  sanguinary  and  'terrible,  yet  re 
main.     I  represented  you  truly,  when  I  warned  and  worked  from 
1856  to  1860  against  the  passionate  zealotry  of  north  and  south ; 
when  I  denounced,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  the  bad  fallacy  and 
worse  conduct  of  the  secessionists  ;  when  I  voted  to  avert  the  im 
pending  war  by  every  measure  of  adjustment ;  and  when  after  war 
came,  by  my  votes  for  money  and  men,  I  aided  the  Administration 
in  maintaining  the  Federal  authority  over  the  insurgent  States. 


224086 

• 


iv  DEDICATION. 

Sustained  by  yon,  I  supported  every  measure  which  was  constitu- 
tional  and  expedient,  to  crush  rebellion.  At  the  same  time  I  have 
fivclv  challenged  the  conduct  of  the  Administration  in  the  use  of 
the  means  committed  to  it  by  a  devoted  people.  Believing  that  a 
proper  use  of  such  means  would  bring  peace  and  union,  and  be 
lieving  in  no  peace  as  permanent  unless  it  were  wedded  to  the 
Ti lion,  in  love  and  contentment,  I  have  omitted  no  opportunity 
to  forward  these  objects.  This  I  have  done  in  spite  of  threat  and 
violence.  For  doing  it  your  confidence  has  not  been  diminished, 
but  increased. 

I  know  that  the  popular  heart  for  some  years  will  love  to 
dwell  most  upon  the  deeds  of  the  war.  The  Doers  will  and 
perhaps  should  outshine  the  Talkers.  Our  defenders  in  the  field 
will  be  elevated  above  those  in  the  forum.  Men  are  prone  to  ad 
mire  the  hero.  When  he  has  the  solid  elements  of  courage  and 
virtue,  added  to  the  glitter  of  martial  success,  admiration  becomes 
worship.  Napoleon  understands  this.  To  aggrandize  the  great 
founder  of  his  family,  he  makes  the  Caesars  create  events,  rather 
than  events  create  Caesars.  But  it  is  as  true  that  the  French  Revo 
lution  was  indebted  to  Rousseau  for  its  seminal  idea,  as  that  its 
events  developed  the  greatness  of  Buonaparte.  The  great  captains 
of  our  \v;u\  McClellan,  Grant,  Sherman,  Sheridan,  Farragut,  and 
Porter,  whose  names  will  shine  most  upon  the  historic  roll,  wTere 
but  the  blossoms  of  that  growth  of  ideas,  whose  antagonism  and 
elucidation  have  been  the  work  of  the  Press,  Pulpit,  and  Forum. 

In  tin •  humble  part  I  have  taken  in  these  discussions,  I  have 
never  underrated  the  magnitude  of  the  institutions  involved  and 
their  underlying  principles.  Augustus  Schlegel  said  of  authorship 
tli  at  according  to  the  spirit  in  which  it  has  been  pursued,  it  is  an 
infamy  or  a  virtue.  So  of  politics.  They  constitute  a  great  moral 


DEDICATION.  v 

and  intellectual  science.  In  its  pursuit  passions  and  interests 
should  be  subordinate  to  wisdom  and  truth.  Acrimony  should 
give  place  to  charity  if  not  to  good  humor.  This  is  for  the  behoof 
of  society,  whose  tranquillity  depends  far  more  upon  the  dominant 
thought  than  upon  the  successful  sword. 

I  would  not,  if  I  could,  perpetuate  any  of  the  conflicts  illus 
trated  in  this  collection.  I  have  had. my  share  of  such  conflicts. 
ISfo  ambition  now  actuates  me  save  that  I  may  be  instrumental 
through  these  pages,  in  mirroring  the  past  eight  years,  with  the 
clearness  and  fidelity  of  truth.  Whatever  my  own  views  may 
have  seemed  to  some,  they  are  to  be  judged  as  you  my  constitu 
ents  judged  them,  by  their  expression  as  here  given,  without  parti 
san  gloss  or  misrepresentation. 

Notwithstanding  this  volume  has  been  prepared  for  your  kind 
eye,  it  is  published  with  distrust ;  therefore  I  crave  from  you  the 
same  indulgence  which  you  have  always  accorded. 

SAMUEL  S.  COX. 

NEW  YORK  CITY,  June  30,  1865. 


CONTENTS. 


MEMOIR. 

PAGB 

A  CONSTITUTIONAL  OPPOSITION 5 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  VOLUME 9 

KANSAS  AND  THE  TERRITORIAL  QUESTION 13 

XXXVI.  CONGRESS — ITS  MEMBERS  AND  VIEWS...  17 


SPEECHES-. 

EXPENSES  OF  1858  AND  1864  COMPARED 31 

TARIFF  IN  1864 [ 35 

FUTURE  QUESTIONS  OF  FINANCE 61 

SEDITION  IN  THE  NORTH (56 

NORTHERN  NULLIFIERS 67 

REVOLUTIONARY  ABOLITIONISM — REPLY  TO  MR.  CORWIN 72 

EXPULSION  OF  MR.  LONG — REPLY  TO  SPEAKER  COLFAX 87 

ARGUELLES  CASE — RIGHT  OF  ASYLUM 104 

TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION — CONTINENTAL  POLICY 109 

MEXICAN  POLITICS — NATIONAL  GROWTH 128 

RECOGNITION  OF  HAYTI  AND  LIBERIA 151 

TRENT  AFFAIR ^ 161 

DEMOCRACY  OF  THE  SEA — MARITIME  RIGHTS 169 

SECESSION — COMPROMISE — NATIONALITY 188 

EULOGY  OF  DOUGLAS 211 

REPLY  TO  MR.  GURLEY  ON  GENERAL  MCCLELLAN 218 

EMANCIPATION  AND  ITS  RESULTS 236 

MEANING  OF  THE  ELECTIONS  OF  1862..  .259 


Viii  CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

PURITANISM  IN  POLITICS 281 

THE  CONSCRIPTION  BILL 303 

NEGRO  SOLDIERS 8l'7 

PERSONAL  LIBERTY — VALLANDIGHAM'S  CASE 327 

MAGNA  CHARTA— ITS  SANCTITY S35 

CONFISCATION 336 

MISCEGENATION 352 

HISTORIC  LESSONS — RECONSTRUCTION 3^ 

CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY 3^6 

ADMISSION  OF  CABINET  INTO  CONGRESS 417 


EIGHT  YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 


i. 

A  CONSTITUTIONAL   OPPOSITION. 

OUTSIDE  of  the  "  home  circle  "  of  constituents  to  whom  this  volume  is 
inscribed,  it  may  be  read  by  those  in  search  of  the  motives  and  principles 
which  actuated  a  constitutional  opposition  in  time  of  civil  war.  It  was 
either  the  good  or  bad  fortune  of  the  writer  to  antagonize  with  the  adminis 
tration  of  his  own  party  on  the  territorial  questions  from  1856  to  1860. 
But  this  may  be  overlooked  by  unfriendly  critics.  The  time  of  war  being 
the  time  of  danger,  the  unreflecting  and  unphilosophical  may  wonder 
how  such  an  opposition  at  such  a  period  could  consist  with  patriotism. 
Do  they  forget  how  England  was  saved  from  disgrace  in  the  Crimean 
war  by  the  onslaughts  of  the  opposition  led  by  the  London  Times  ?  May 
not  the  Government  be  magnified  by  exposing  the  weakness  of  its  admin 
istration?  Is  there  not  constant  need  of  such  criticism  as  will  strengthen 
the  Government  while  it  condemns  the  policy  of  its  imbecile  or  corrupt 
agents  ?  Lest  the  very  function  should  cease  by  the  incapacity  of  the 
functionary,  should  we  be  less  heedful  how  we  undignify  the  office  by  un 
due  contempt  of  the  officer,  than  how  we  unduly  dignify  the  officer  at  the 
expense  of  the  office  ? 

Hence,  in  all  free  countries  an  opposition  is  regarded  as  an  element 
of  the  Constitution — an  estate  of  the  realm.  It  cannot  be  dispensed 
with  without  danger  to  Liberty.  However  great  may  be  the  obligation 
of  the  country  to  the  soldier  for  his  valiant  right  arm,  it  owes  something 
to  those  who,  regardless  of  the  frowns  of  power  or  the  allurements  of 
patronage,  maintained  a  steadfast  front  against  the  corruptions  and  tyran 
nies  incident  to  war. 

If  I  may  quote  from  a  letter  addressed  to  me  on  the  22d  of  January, 


6  EIGHT   YEABS   IN   CONGRESS. 

1865,  by  the  Hon.  James  Guthrie  of  Kentucky,  in  reference  to  the  con 
stitutional  amendment  abolishing  slavery,  I  would  recognize  the  truth, 
that  "  the  rebellion  has  left  deep  scars  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  those  of  the  States  ;  and  if  some  are  made  on  the  road  to  re 
union  and  the  restoration  of  peace,  with  renewed  confidence  in  freedom 
and  justice,  we  must  leave  its  apology  to  the  evils  and  necessities  of  the 
times."  Yet  in  recognizing  this  truth  now,  is  it  a  reproach  to  a  fearless 
representative  that  he  was  not  an  indifferent  spectator  while  such  scars 
were  being  made?  His  duty  before  the  war,  and  d  fortiori  during  its  con 
tinuance,  was  to  proclaim  the  perils  to  constitutional  freedom  and  federal 
union  involved  in  a  violent  conflict.  The  statue  of  Liberty  was  veiled 
again  and  again,  during  its  progress.  Nor  has  the  cessation  of  hostilities 
fully  restored  the  freedom  of  the  citizen.  It  is  the  writer's  pride,  that 
he  never  failed  to  protest  against  the  eclipse  of  Liberty  by  Power.  Hence, 
what  may  have  seemed  to  a  superficial  observer  an  unpatriotic  opposi 
tion,  was  only  and  truly  an  opposition  to  the  arbitrary  proceedings  with 
which  the  war  was  accompanied.  Such  an  opposition  was  dictated  by 
regard  for  the  very  object  which  the  war  sought  to  establish.  Time  will 
vindicate  both  the  writer  and  others,  who,  while  they  maintained  the 
war  for  the  Union,  did  not  permit  their  voices  for  personal  and  public 
liberty  to  be  drowned  in  the  clangor  of  arms.  Those  who  contest  en 
croachments  incident  to  war,  are  never  regarded  in  history  as  enemies, 
but  as  the  truest  devotees  of  well-regulated  Liberty. 

The  key-note  to  these  speeches,  and  all  efforts  made  by  their  author  in 
and  out  of  Congress,  was  struck  in  the  heat  of  a  debate  with  a  member 
from  Indiana,  Mr.  Julian,  on  the  9th  of  April,  1864  : — "  Under  no  cir 
cumstances  conceivable  by  the  human  mind,  would  I  ever  violate  the  Con 
stitution  for  any  purpose.  To  compass  its  destruction  as  a  probable  or 
possible  necessity,  is  the  very  gospel  of  anarchy — the  philosophy  of  disso 
lution."  This  was  in  reply  to  a  Northern  statesman,  urging  extra-con 
stitutional  means  to  suppress  the  rebellion.  Almost  the  same  language 
used  by  the  writer,  to  denounce  the  heresy  of  secession  in  the  winter 
of  1860-'61. 

In  the  perusal  of  these  pages,  no  one  will  find  any  aid,  by  speech  or 
vote,  given  to  those  who  raised  the  standard  of  revolt.  In  his  speech  on 
"  Conciliation  and  Nationality,"  the'writer,  while  pleading  for  the  spirit 
and  measures  of  compromise,  invoked  at  the  same  time  that  vigorous 
spirit  of  nationality,  which  could  only  exist  with  an  unmutilated  Union. 
lie  warned  South  Carolina,  that  in  striving  to  be  Augustus,  her  fate 
would  be  less  than  Augustulus.  When  the  resolution  was  iniroduced 
thanking  Gen.  Anderson  for  his  defence  of  Fort  Sumter,  the  writer 


A   CONSTITUTIONAL   OPPOSITION.  7 

gave  it  his  heartiest  vote.  When  eulogizing  Judge  Douglas,  after  hia 
death,  at  the  extra  session  of  1861,  the  writer  regarded  it  as  the  consum 
mate  glory  of  Douglas's  life  to  have  given  his  most  emphatic  utterance 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  Government,  even  though  its  administration 
was  committed  to  his  old  political  antagonist,  and  although  he  knew  that 
such  expression  imperilled  the  lives  of  a  hundred  thousand  of  his  friends. 

Throughout  the  subsequent  years  of  the  war,  the  writer  always  voted 
for  the  support  of  the  army.  Without  refining  as  to  the  power  to  coerce 
a  State,  or  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United  States  against  individuals, 
he  found  the  war  flagrant.  He  acted  for  its  vigorous  maintenance. 
Whether  the  war  was  simply  to  preserve  the  rights  of  the  General  Govern 
ment,  by  repelling  a  direct  and  positive  aggression  upon  its  property  or 
its  officers  ;  or  whether  it  was,  in  fact,  a  war  of  general  hostility,  carried  on 
by  the  central  government  against  a  State,  was  considered  by  some  be 
fore  the  war  as  a  momentous  question.  But  after  the  war  came,  its  red 
right  hand  made  a  new  code.  The  enforcement  of  national  supremacy 
overwhelmed  all  questions  of  State  coercion. 

Why  was  it  not  compatible  to  favor  both  war  and  peace,  without  a 
solecism  in  thought  or  language  ?  When  this  war  appeared  as  a  speck  on 
the  horizon,  I  pleaded  and  voted  for  conciliation.  I  voted  for  every  com 
promise,  including  that  of  Crittenden.  I  preferred  the  bonds  of  Love  to 
the  armor  of  Force.  I  found  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  a  wisdom 
beyond  that  of  Presidents  or  priests.  I  never  went,  so  far  as  Charles 
Sunmer  in  his  speech  on  the  "  True  Grandeur  of  Nations,"  when  he  pro 
nounced  "  all  international  war  to  be  civil  war,  and  the  partakers  in  it  to 
be  traitors  to  God  and  enemies  to  man ; "  when  he  quoted  Cicero  to  show 
that  he  "  preferred  the  unjustest  peace  to  the  justest  war ;  "  and  Franklin, 
to  show  that  there  "  never  was  a  good  war  or  a  bad  peace  ;  "  or  when  Mr. 
Sumner  declared  "that  in  our  age  there  can  be  no  peace  that  is  not  hon 
orable." — (Sumner's  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  11.)  But  I  did  and  do  hold  that 
in  our  land  it  was  wisest,  kindest,  and  best  to  agree  to  any  compro 
mise  which  Crittenden  framed,  Douglas  advocated,  and  to  which  Davis 
and  Toombs  acceded,  which  would  have  averted  these  horrible  calami 
ties.  In  thus  believing,  I  sought  to  carry  out  the  Democratic  principle 
which  Madison  laid  down  before  the  late  war  of  1812 — "  that  war  was 
only  and  rarely  tolerable  as  a  necessary  evil,  to  be  kept  off  as  long,  and 
whenever  it  takes  place,  to  be  closed  as  soon  as  possible."  When  this 
civil  war  began,  I  voted  for  tjie  Crittenden  Resolution  of  July  22, 1861,  that 
it  was  not  to  be  waged  in  any  spirit  of  oppression,  nor  for  any  purpose  of 
conquest  or  subjugation,  nor  for  the  purpose  of  overthrowing  or  interfering 
with  the  rights  or  established  institutions  of  the  States,  but  to  defend 


8  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

and  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  preserve  the 
Union,  with  all  the  dignity,  equality,  and  rights  of  the  several  States  un 
impaired.  I  voted  the  money  and  men  in  the  spirit  of  the  President's  Inau 
gural  of  March  4, 1861,  when  he  declared  that  he  had  no  purpose,  direct 
ly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States 
where  it  exists  ;  "  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination 
to  do  so." 

It  was  in  this  spirit  that  on  the  26th  of  July,  1861,  I  offered  a  reso 
lution  in  Congress  to  make  undiminishcd  and  increased  exertions  by  our 
navy  and  army  to  maintain  the  Government,  and  that  a  commission  be 
appointed,  consisting  of  Millard  Fillmore  and  others,  to  meet  commis 
sioners,  not  from  the  rebel  Government,  but  from  the  seceded  States,  to 
aid  in  restoring  by  peaceful  and  honorable  measures  the  old  Union  and 
the  former  condition  of  things.  I  defended  my  resolution  when  it  was 
pressed  against  me  by  the  opposition.  I  have  not  swerved  a  hair  from 
it.  I  said  in  1863 :  "I  am  as  ready  now  to  cancel  confiscation  and 
emancipation  policies,  and  welcome  Louisiana  and  North  Carolina  back 
to  their  old  position,  as  I  am  to  sustain  our  army  in  the  field  while  a  rebel 
army  contests  our  authority  on  a  foot  of  our  soil." 

The  writer  opposed  many  of  the  acts  of  the  administration.  He 
believed  then,  as  now,  that  they  tended  to  procrastinate  peace.  In  this 
view  he  sympathized  with  such  statesmen  as  Gov.  Crittenden.  That  the 
war  would  not  end  without  the  destruction  of  slavery,  he  believed  as 
firmly  as  that  it  was  his  duty  to  save  as  much  as  possible  of  the  incontes 
table  powers  of  the  States  over  domestic  matters.  Mr.  Stephens  had 
warned  the  Georgia  Convention,  on  the  14th  of  November,  1860,  that  "a 
vindictive  decree  of  universal  emancipation  "  would  follow  secession.  So 
it  did  ;  but  it  was  powerless  compared  with  the  military  arm  which  had 
unshackled  the  slave  before  the  edict  came. 

Peace  has  come.  Slavery  is  gone.  The  constitutional  amendment  is 
not  adopted ;  but  its  adoption  is  only  a  form,  and  a  question  of  time. 
The  part  taken  by  the  writer  concerning  that  amendment  is  shown  in 
this  volume. 

The  country  is  greatly  changed — politically,  socially,  materially,  na 
tionally.  Novus  seculorum  nascitur  ordo.  "What  that  new  order  may  be, 
depends  upon  the  adherence  of  President  Johnson  to  his  former  princi 
ples.  We  have  a  census  of  more  than  thirty  millions,  scattered  over  a 
great  area.  We  are  what  Mr.  Disraeli  called  a  Territorial  Democracy. 
When  the  census  becomes  60,000,000,  or  100,000,000,  the  questions  of 
municipal  independence,  State  rights,  and  local  self-government  may  come 
with  more  force  than  ever  before.  In  the  judgment  of  the  writer,  it  is 


CLASSIFICATION   OF   THE   VOLUME.  9 

only  by  adhering  to  the  doctrines  of  decentralization,  that  the  great  di 
versity  of  interests  in  a  union  of  such  extent  can  be  harmonized,  and 
the  questions  of  individual  rights  properly  settled.  These  doctrines  of 
local  independence  and  self-government  have  been  the  inspiration  of  the 
words  and  acts  here  recorded.  They  have  found  expression  all  through 
these  speeches.  Without  them,  our  Union  will  be  forever  endangered. 
With  them,  it  will  fulfil  the  hopes  and  prayers  of  all  patriots.  They 
furnish  the  key  to  unlock  the  magic  chambers  of  our  future.  They  are 
the  safe  and  golden  mean  between  the  extremes  of  faction.  As  Tenny 
son  has  sung : 

The  wisdom  of  a  thousand  years 

Is  in  them.     May  perpetual  youth 

Keep  dry  their  light  from  tears, 

Make  bright  our  days  and  h'ght  our  dreams, 

Turning  to  scorn,  with  lips  divine, 

The  falsehood  of  extremes. 


II. 
CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  VOtUME. 

The  speeches  are  arranged  in  classes  : 

First. — Those  connected  with  finance  and  tariff.  The  first  speech  is 
in  defence  of  the  economy  of  the  Government,  when  only  sixty-five  millions 
per  year  was  the  appropriation.  The  last  one  is  at  a  time  when  eight 
hundred  millions  per  session  were  voted !  The  speech  on  the  tariff  is  the 
most  elaborate  of  the  collection.  It  is  an  exposition,  by  irrefragable  data 
and  arguments,  of  the  robbery,  under  the  present  system,  by  the  producer 
of  the  great  bulk  of  the  consumers.  It  is  an  earnest  appeal  to  return  to 
the  principles  of  economic  science  and  unrestricted  interchange  to  which 
the  civilization  of  the  age  has  given  Ibody  and  spirit.  The  stupendous 
iniquity  by  which  one  set  of  States  and  one  class  of  men  are  allowed  gra 
tuities  from  the  unprotected  States  and  classes,  must  soon  be  understood. 
Men  of  all  parties  will  unite  to  correct  this  gigantic  injustice.  As  Cobden 
and  Peel  joined  hands,  while  Elliott  sang  and  Villiers  spoke,  to  give  Eng 
land  the  cheap  loaf;  as  at  last  that  boon  was  wrested  by  an  intelligent 
people  from  a  landed  monopoly  ;  so  before  1868,  agriculture  and  commerce, 
labor  of  all  kinds,  consumers  of  every  degree,  will  join  in  a  new  Bund, 
to  rescue  famishing  toil  from  fiscal  tyranny.  To  this  speech  I  challenge 
the  scrutiny  of  every  reflecting  citizen. 


10  EIGHT  YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Second. — Speeches  which  display  the  sedition  and  sectionalism  of  the 
North.  The  republication  of  such  speeches  may  be  reprehended  now ; 
but  truth  compels  their  publication.  No  one  can  deny  but  that  the  South 
had  grievances.  Their  error  and  crime  consisted  in  mistaking — oh  !  how 
wofully — their  remedy. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Government  there  have  been  sectional  as 
perities  growing  out  of  sectional  interests.  *  These  were  happily  reconciled, 
in  their  successive  eras,  by  statesmanship.  For  more  than  a  generation 
past  these  animosities  have  been  aggravated  by  zealots  in  both  sections. 
Political  ambition,  springing  out  of  the  rank  soil  of  sectional  hate,  engen 
dered  by  the  heats  of  -theologic  strife,  at  last  culminated  in  the  open  revolt 
of  18G1.  Not  alone  slavery,  but  questions  involving  provincial  jealousy, 
representation  and  taxation,  excise,  assumption  of  State  debts,  assertion 
of  State  rights,  commercial  restrictions,  the  purchase  or  acquisition  of  ter 
ritory,  and  the  war  of  1812,  have  from  the  beginning  given  to  the  slavery 
question  additional  fuel,  and  embroiled  the  States  into  an  antagonism  in 
which  the  sword  leaped  from  the  sheath.  State  comity  and  Christian  feeling, 
at  different  eras  of  the  controversy,  alleviated  its  harshness  and  composed 
its  rancor.  But  the  conflict  was  declared  irrepressible  ;  and  irrepressibly 
it  burst  forth. 

It  would  be  a  falsehood,  if  not  a  crime,  to  say  that  the  blame  for  these 
animosities  rested  exclusively  on  one  section.  Not  alone  on  the  South, 
not  alone  on  the  North,  but  upon  both  sections,  will  history  affix  the 
stigma.  Hiacos  intra  muros  peccatur  et  extra. 

Vattel  says  that  no  considerable  insurrection  or  rebellion  ever  existed 
without  some  grievances  as  the  cause.  Tnese  grievances  the  South  had. 
They  committed  the  great  crime  of  striking  at  the  Federal  centre,  when 
their  complaint  was  against  States.  Besides,  their  remedy  was  ample  in 
the  Union.  Revolution  can  never  be  justified  unless  two  things  concur : 
first,  the  grievances  must  be  great,  and  irremediable  except  by  the  sword  ; 
and  secondly,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  probability  of  success.  The 
South  had  neither  justification.  For  them  to  draw  the  sword,  was  to  fall 
upon  it. 

From  this  class  of  speeches,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  leaders  of  Southern 
revolt  copied  many  of  their  pernicious  heresies  and  worse  practices  from 
the  scditionists  of  the  North. 

Third. — Connected  with  the  above  classification,  incidentally  discussed, 
was  the  question  of  fugitives  from  foreign  lands  and  the  right  of  asylum. 
The  occasion  was  the  action  of  the  administration  in  the  Arguclles  case. 
I  offered  a  resolution  reprobating  the  violation  of  the  right  of  asylum. 
It  was  shelved  without  allowing  debate.  There  was  only  one  opportunity 


CLASSIFICATION   OF   THE   VOLUME.  11 

to  debate  it.  That  was  in  connection  with  the  return  of  fugitives  from 
justice  and  labor,  in  which  the  analogies  were  pointed  out.  This  question 
was  met  by  the  usual  fling :  "  Oh !  you  are  defending  the  slave  trade. 
You  are  the  advocate  of  the  enemy  of  our  race."  But  time  has  shown 
that  Arguelles  was  not  what  he  has  been  charged  with  being ;  that  Gen 
eral  Dulce  has  been  dismissed  for  his  treatment  of  Arguelles  ;  and  that 
the  precedent  our  nation  made  is  a  blot  upon  the  diplomatic  escutcheon  of 
our  country. 

Fourth. — Speeches  on  Foreign  Affairs.  These  are  mostly  in  vindi 
cation  of  our  traditional  policy  respecting  this  continent.  They  were 
made  in  1859  and  1860.  They  contain  words  since  made  prophetic  by 
the  action  cf  France,  absolutely  prophetic.  They  laid  down  a  policy  for 
the  orderly  and  erect  independence  of  Mexico ;  such  a  policy  as  would 
give  us  the  commercial  and  other  results  of  annexation,  without  its 
troubles  and  dangers.  If  the  warnings  I  gave  in  1860  had  been  heeded, 
Maximilian  would  now  be  at  his  palace  in  Miramar,  overlooking  the 
Adriatic,  and  Napoleon  content  with  quoting  the  Koran  to  prove  his 
Cresarism  divine  for  Arab  as  well  as  Frank.  These  speeches  had  the  honor 
of  Spanish  and  French  translations,  and  considerable  circulation  in 
Spanish  America  as  well  as  Europe.  But,  in  anticipation  of  our  own 
troubles,  they  attracted  but  little  attention  from  our  own  citizens.  Gen. 
Cass  did  me  the  favor  to  say  that  he  would  rest  his  policy,  as  Secretary 
of  State,  on  the  principles  enunciated  in  them.  That  these  principles  are 
destined  to  play  a  large  part  in  our  future,  is  already  "  manifest."  I  will 
thank  my  constituents  to  re-read  them  in  the  light  of  the  present  time. 

In  connection  with  foreign  affairs,  I  offered,  on  the  3d  of  March,  1862, 
a  series  of  resolutions  in  relation  to  maritime  law.  They  grew  out  of 
the  Trent  affair.  In  December,  1861,  I  had  discussed  the  questions  in 
volved  in  the  seizure  of  the  soi-disant  ambassadors  of  the  South.  I  did 
not  believe  that  a  single  principle  had  been  'violated  in  that  seizure.  I 
am  a  firm  advocate  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Sea ;  I  could  not  have 
spoken  as  I  did,  had  I  believed  that  it  had  been  outraged  in  that  case.  I 
desired,  however,  that  the  most  important  international  question  of  our 
age — the  maritime  rights  of  nations — should  receive  fresh  impulse.  I 
wished  that  impulse  to  be  in  the  path  of  liberality.  With  a  view  to  un- 
trarnmelling  commerce  from  the  English  system,  I  embodied,  in  the  reso 
lutions  which  I  offered,  the  best  sentiment  of  the  progressive  publicists  of 
all  time.  With  such  ability  as  I  could  command,  I  urged  the  ameliora 
tion  of  the  liabilities  of  neutrals  and  the  assertion  of  the  traditionary  policy 
of  America. 

Fifth. — A  eulogy  upon  Stephen  A.  Douglas.     This  species  of  oratory 


12  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

has  not  been  regarded  hitherto  as  very  successfully  illustrated  in  our 
parliamentary  annals.  My  relations  with  Judge  Douglas ;  his  peculiar 
doctrines  ;  and  his  death,  so  inopportune,  combined  to  give  an  interest  to  the 
theme  which  oratory  failed  to  elicit.  The  American  people  have  since 
done  justice  to  Douglas.  This  eulogy  will  not  be  looked  upon  now  as 
the  emanation  of  a  partial  friend,  but  as  a  truthful  analysis  of  a  giant 
mind,  energized  into  action  by  the  throbbings  of  a  great  heart. 

Sixth. — Speeches  growing  out  of  Secession  and  the  War.  These  em 
brace  earnest  appeals  to  the  North  to  tender,  and  the  South  to  receive,  a 
peaceful  redress  of  grievances.  They  discard  secession  as  an  unconstitu 
tional  and  revolutionary  proceeding,  unjustifiable  and  criminal,  and  ele 
vate  the  principle  of  nationality  to  that  eminence  where  the  Constitu 
tion  can  ever  shield  it.  They  embrace  a  vindication  of  Gen.  McClellan 
from  the  attack  of  the  Congressional  war  critics ;  the  proper  policy  of 
conducting  the  \var  ;  the  errors  of  the  fanatical  and  negro  policies,  with 
reference  to  emancipation  and  its  results  upon  North  and  South,  and  upon 
whites  and  blacks  ;  the  Conscription  bill ;  the  Confiscation  measures ; 
Puritanism  in  Politics  ;  Miscegenation  ;  and  finally,  the  questions  involved 
in  the  reconstruction  of  the  Union  and  in  the  violation  of  personal  liberty. 
In  illustration  of  the  speaker's  views,  I  have  introduced  one  short  speech 
not  made  in  Congress,  upon  the  arrest  of  Mr.  Vallandigham.  It  was 
made  in  May,  1863,  a  few  days  after  the  arrest.  The  sentiments  of 
that  speech,  revivified  by  the  classic  eloquence  of  Hon.  Henry  Winter 
Davis,  have  been  endorsed  by  the  Hous<,of  Representatives  at  the  end  of 
the  last  session. 

Seventh. — The  amendment  of  the  Constitution  abolishing  slavery,  in 
which  the  speaker  maintained  the  power  to  amend,  but  did  not  believe  its 
exercise  to  be  judicious  at  the  time. 

Eighth. — The  final  speech  on  the  proposition  to  admit  the  Cabinet  into 
Congress,  in  which  the  danger  of  aggrandizing  power  in  the  Federal  Ex 
ecutive  is  considered. 

It  will  be  observed  from  this  arrangement  and  classification,  that  the 
round  of  political  discussion  has  been  run  by  the  speaker.  In  not  one  of 
the  sentences  of  these  speeches  is  there  a  syllable  that  breathes  aught  but 
love  of  country,  respect  for  its  Constitution,  reverence  for  its  founders, 
and  prayerful  aspirations  for  its  permanent  peace  and  prosperity. 


m. 

KANSAS  AND  THE  TERRITORIAL  QUESTION. 

THE  writer  was  thrown  iiito  Congress  by  the  refluent  wave  that  fol 
lowed  the  excitement  growing  out  of  the  Kansas  question.  The  Repub 
lican  party  had  made  the  issue  with  Judge  Douglas  on  his  doctrine  of 
sovereignty.  A  majority  of  the  35th  Congress  had  been  returned  on  the 
principle  of  laissezfaire  to  the  people  of  the  Territories.  The  travail 
which  gave  birth  to  Kansas  as  a  State,  was  the  same  agony  prolonged 
which  eventuated  in  civil  strife.  Had  the  Democratic  party,  then  in 
power,  united  wisely  to  thrust  aside  the  fraudulent  constitution  of  Kansas 
made  at  Lecompton,  there  would  have  been  no  distraction  in  its  ranks  in 
1860.  The  Charleston  Convention  would  have  agreed.  Most  probably 
no  Republican  success  would  have  made  memorable  that  year.  Hence, 
in  inquiring  into  the  real,  if  not  the  proximate  causes  of  the  war  and  the 
alienation  of  the  sections,  we  cannot  ignore  the  questions  as  to  Kansas. 
To  be  sure,  Kansas  was  the  occasion,  rather  than  the  cause  of  conflict. 
The  slavery  agitation  was  the  paramount  cause.  There  is  something 
ineffably  repugnant  to  the  human  heart  in  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave.  The  idea  of  one  human  being  owning  another  human  being 
would  thrust  itself  forward  in  all  these  struggles,  irrepressibly  foremost. 
Whether  in  resistance  to  the  constitutional  authorities — as  in  the  case  of 
fugitives  from  justice  and  labor — or  in  the  admission  of  new  States,  or  in 
the  organization  of  territories,  the  anti-slavery  zealot,  whether  sincere  or 
not,  handled  a  weapon  so  tempered  with  seeming  justice,  so  flashing,  as 
it  were,  in  defence  of  a  higher  than  human  law,  and  wreathed  as  with 
the  "  beauty  of  the  lilies "  by  the  lyric  poetry  of  the  time,  that  the 
sanctions  of  authority  were  as  mere  houses  of  cards  before  his  blows. 
No  wonder  that  with  such  an  impulse  the  devotees  of  anti-slavery,  in  the 
language  of  one  of  their  eloquent  champions,  "  would  rend  the  Union  to 
destroy  slavery,  though  hedged  round  by  the  triple  bars  of  the  national 
compact,  and  though  thirty-three  crowned  sovereigns,  with  arms  in  their 
hands,  stood  around  it."  The  pro-slavery  men  of  1857  forgot  the  grow 
ing  power  of  this  sentiment,  and  the  increasing  power  of  the  North  to 
enforce  it.  They  desperately  struggled  to  force  Kansas  into  the  Union  as 
a  Slave  State,  by  a  stupendous  fraud.  In  the  reaction  against  its  perpe 
tration,  a  fresh  agitation  was  aroused.  This  new  agitation  outlasted  the 
interest  in  the  case  of  Kansas.  The  whole  country  became  a  Kan- 
2 


14  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

sas.  It  absorbed  all  the  energies  of  debate.  The  first  speech  made  by 
me  in  Congress,  and,  as  it  was  noted,  the  first  made  in  the  new  hall  of  the 
House,  on  the  16th  of  December,  1857,  was  also  the  first  speech  against 
Lecompton  by  any  one  in  the  lower  house  of  Congress.  1  remember 
taking  it  to  Judge  Douglas  at  his  house  on  the  Sunday  preceding  the 
discussion,  to  read  him  parts  of  it  in  manuscript.  The  Globe  of  that 
time  will  show  the  speech,  and  the  attempt  by  Southern  statesmen, 
Messrs.  Bococke,  Quitman,  Jones,  and  others,  to  cut  me  off  from  the  de 
bate.  As  a  consequence  of  this  speech,  my  friend  the  postmaster  at 
Columbus  lost  his  office,  and  I  lost  caste  with  the  administration.  I  was 
content  to  wander  for  four  years  throughout  the  administration  of  Presi 
dent  Buchanan — a  Democrat  who  had  helped  his  election,  without  influ 
ence  to  help  a  single  friend. 

As  the  interest  in  that  discussion  has  subsided,  I  do  not  propose  to  re 
produce  these  speeches.  The  points  will  appear  from  this  extract  : 

I  propose  now  to  nail  against  the  door,  at  the  threshold  of  this  Con 
gress,  my  theses.  When  the  proper  time  comes,  I  will  defend  them, 
whether  from  the  assaults  of  political  friend  or  foe.  I  would  fain  be 
silent,  sir,  here  and  now.  But  silence,  which  is  said  to  be  as  "  harmless 
as  a  rose's  breath,"  may  be  as  perilous  as  the  pestilence.  This  peril 
comes  from  the  attempt  to  forego  the  capital  principle  of  Democratic 
policy,  which  I  think  has  been  done  by  the  constitutional  convention  of 
Kansas.  I  maintain  : — 1.  That  the  highest  refinement  and  greatest  utility 
of  Democratic  policy — the  genius  of  our  institutions — is  the  right  of  self- 
government.  2.  That  this  self-government  means  the  will  of  the  major 
ity,  legally  expressed.  3.  That  this  self-government  and  majority  rule 
were  sacredly  guaranteed  in  the  organic  act  of  Kansas.  4.  That  it  was 
guaranteed  upon  the  question  of  slavery  in  terms ;  and  generally  with 
respect  to  all  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  people.  5.  That  domestic 
institutions  mean  all  which  are  local,  not  national — State,  not  Federal. 
It  means  that  and  that  only — that  always.  6.  That  the  people  were  to 
be  left  perfectly  free  to  establish  or  abolish  slavery,  as  well  as  to  form 
and  regulate  their  other  institutions.  7.  That  the  doctrine  was  recog 
nized  in  every  part  of  the  Confederacy  by  the  Democracy ;  fixed  in  their 
national  platform  ;  asserted  by  their  speakers  and  presses  ;  reiterated  by 
their  candidates  ;  incorporated  in  messages  and  instructions  ;  and  formed 
the  feature  which  distinguished  the  Democracy  from  its  opponents,  who 
maintained  the  doctrine  of  congressional  intervention.  8.  The  Lecomp 
ton  constitution,  while  it  is  asserted  that  it  is  submitted  to  the  people  in 
the  essential  point,  thus  recognizing  an  obligation  to  submit  it  in  some 
mode,  cannot,  in  any  event,  be  rejected  by  the  people  of  Kansas.  The 
vote  must  be  for  its  approval,  whether  the  voter  votes  one  way  or  an 
other.  The  poople  may  be  unwilling  to  take  either  of  the  propositions,  and 
yet  must  vote  one  or  the  other  of  them.  They  have  to  vote  "  constitu 
tion  with  slavery,"  or  "  constitution  with  no  slavery  ;  "'  but  the  constitu 
tion  they  must  take. 


KANSAS   AND   THE   TEEEITOEIAL    QUESTION.  15 

These  were  the  points  elaborated  in  that  discussion.  Differing  with 
Mr.  Buchanan,  I  was  constrained  afterwards  to  differ  with  Judge  Doug 
las  on  the  Compromise  bill  reported  by  a  Committee  of  Conference.  I 
voted  for  the  latter  on  the  ground  that  it  returned  for  a  fair  election  the 
fraudulent  constitution  to  the  people,  and  that  there  were  people  enough 
for  a  State  in  Kansas.  I  was  fully  justified  by  the  subsequent  action  of 
the  people  under  that  bill.  Subsequently  I  voted  to  receive  the  free 
State  of  Kansas  ;  and  after  justifying  my  former  vote,  scarcely  exagger 
ated  the  campaign  I  had  undergone,  when  I  said  that — 

For  voting  for  this  Conference  bill,  even  after  I  was  justified  by  the 
popular  vote  of  Kansas  in  the  summer  of  1858,  I  was  compelled  to  meet 
from  Republicans  at  home  a  campaign  unexampled  for  its  unprovoked 
fierceness,  its  base  and  baseless  charges  of  personal  corruption,  its  con 
ceit,  its  ignorance,  its  impudence,  its  poltroonery,  its  billingsgate,  its  bru 
tality,  its  moneyed  corruption,  its  fanatical  folly,  its  unflagging  slang,  its 
drunken  saturnalia,  and  its  unblushing  libels  and  pious  hypocrisy  !  At 
the  capital  of  Ohio,  in  its  most  noble  and  intelligent  precincts,  the  peo 
ple,  ashamed  of  and  indignant  at  the  audacious  falsehood  and  brazen 
clamor  from  the  presses  of  the  State,  and  from  the  little  penny-a-liners 
and  pettifoggers,  who  echoed  the  libels  of  members  fresh  from  this  floor 
— in  spite  of  all  this  the  people  doubled  my  majority  of  1856.  I  had  the 
satisfaction — prouder  than  a  temporary  victory — of  seeing  the  policy  I 
had  voted  for  with  earnest  conviction  of  duty,  and  with  the  sustaining 
advice  of  such  a  statesman  as  Robert  J.  Walker,  vindicated  by  time,  and 
sustained  by  its  practical  operation.  As  the  crowning  act  of  this  triumph, 
I  shall  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  this  constitution.  In 
doing  this,  I  court  all  criticism,  defy  all  menace,  and  truly  represent 
almost  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  my  district. 

Inasmuch  as  my  vote  for* the  Conference  bill  was  greatly  impugned 
and  as  it  seemed  to  be  a  departure  from  the  original  position  of  Judge 
Douglas,  I  was  solicitous  to  have  the  Judge  explain  our  relations  to  this 
question.  This  he  did  during  the  campaign  of  1860.  On  the  20th  of 
September  he  spoke  to  an  immense  meeting  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  in 
which  he  thus  explained  the  differences  between  himself  and  other  Demo 
crats  : 

"I  made  the  first  speech  in  the  Senate  against  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution,  and  without  consulting  Mr.  Cox  or  any  one  else,  and  Mr.  Cox 
made  the  first  speech  against  it  in  the  House,  without  consultation  or  dic 
tation  from  me.  We  fought  it  through  on  our  own  responsibility  until 
Lecompton  was  dead  ;  and  when  Lecompton  was  defeated,  its  friends  got 
up  the  English  bill  to  cover  its  retreat.  Hon.  Robert  J.  Walker,  then 
Governor  of  Kansas,  advised  Mr.  Cox  and  myself  to  go  for  it,  giving  as 
surance  that  when  presented  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  they  would  kill  it, 
ten  to  one.  Under  these  circumstances,  some  of  our  men  felt  it  their  duty 


16  EIGHT  TEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

to  go  for  the  bill.  I  did  not  think  it  a  fair  submission  to  the  will  of  the 
people,  and  determined  to  fight  it  too.  Mr.  Cox  said  he  had  consulted 
the  members  of  the  Ohio  delegation,  that  they  all  agreed  to  vote  for  it,  and 
that  under  the  circumstances  he  should  vote  with  them.  I  told  him  I 
had  no  quarrel  with  those  of  my  friends  who  differed  with  me  honestly  on 
that  point,  and  afterwards  I  wrote  letters  in  favor  of  the  election  of  some 
of  those  who  had  voted  for  the  English  bill.  The  Judge  concluded  by 
urging  his  friends  in  the  District  to  nail  the  slander  by  reelecting  Mr.  Cox." 

Had  Judge  Douglas  yielded  his  resolution  on  this  subject,  and  voted 
for  the  Conference  bill,  the  territorial  question  would  not  have  been  mooted 
at  Charleston,  with  so  marked  a  personal  application.  His  nomination 
would  have  been  made  without  division.  For  a  time,  at  least,  secession 
would  have  been  prevented,  and  war  averted.  The  political  battles  of 
I860  were  fought  on  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories.  The 
election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  which  took  place  in  November,  I860,  not  only 
settled  the  question  against  the  South,  but  against  the  friends  and  doctrine 
of  Judge  Douglas.  Congress  met  in  December  following  ;  then  arose  for 
desperate  debate  all  the  varied  questions  involving  human  servitude.  It 
was  to  the  composition  of  these  questions  that  the  good  men  of  that  time 
addressed  themselves.  That  Congress  was  one  of  marked  ability.  The 
South  especially  was  ably  represented.  The  hidden  facts,  the  inner  life, 
the  scenes  and  incidents  which  never  appear  on  public  record,  and  seldom 
appear  even  in  the  newspaper,  when  they  shall  transpire  will  give  to  that 
Congress  the  graphic  interest  of  a  battle  picture.  Out  of  its  discussions, 
devices,  and  seditions,  arose  the  bloody  spectre  of  war  !  It  is  my  hope  in 
the  following  pages  to  illustrate  some  of  these  incidents  and  scenes.  I  do 
not  design  to  reproduce  the  public  record  ;  that  is  done.  Nor  do  I  expect  to 
change  men's  minds  as  to  the  merit  or  demerit  of  its  men  and  measures. 
But  there  is  much  of  interest  as  yet  unwritten  clinging  to  the  actors  in  that 
drama — a  drama  whose  last  act  has  had  its  tragical  denouement  in  the 
assassination  of  a  kind  Chief  Magistrate,  whose  pall,  like  that  of  the  last 
day,  still  hangs  over  our  newly-resurrected  nation. 


XXXVI.  CONGRESS— SESSION  1860-'61. 


ITS  MEMBERS— THEIR  CHARACTERISTICS,  OPINIONS,  AND  VOTES— THE  CRIT- 
TENDEN  AND  OTHER  COMPROMISES. 

IT  was  my  intention,  in  this  volume,  to  have  prefixed  to  the  speeches 
such  recollections  connected  with  the  rise  and  progress  of  our  civil  war 
as  would  illustrate  its  motive  and  life.  Especially  did  I  intend  to  sketch 
those  inner  political  facts  and  scenes  which  my  position  enabled  me  to 
observe.  But  the  volume  would  be  too  much  enlarged  by  their  elabora 
tion.  It  would  require  a  volume  by  itself  to  connect  with  the  recorded 
facts  such  a  memorabilia.  Their  recital  would  give  personal  interest 
and  piquancy  to  these  historic  events ;  but  that  labor  must  be  reserved. 
It  would  scarcely  be  kind,  now  that  the  leaders  of  the  rebellion  are  under 
the  ban,  and  many  of  them  incarcerated,  to  add  any  thing  to  the  reproba 
tion  which  they  have  received,  or  to  the  fetters  which  weigh  them  down. 
Is  it  Ossian,  or  some  other  writer  (the  sentiment  hardly  belongs  to  our 
own  times),  who  says  that  while  we  should  be  a  tide  of  many  streams 
against  the  enemies  of  our  country,  we  should  be  as  a  zephyr  upon  the 
grass  toward  a  fallen  foe  ?  I  would  emulate  that  Christian  philosophy, 
not  only  in  writing  but  in  acting.  While  recalling  much  that  occurred 
during  the  winter  of  1860-'61,  it  would  be  generous  now  only  to  record  the 
inclinations  and  efforts  of  those  under  condemnation  who  then  endeavored 
to  stay  the  madness  of  secession. 

f  One  thing  is  remarkable  as  connected  with  that  Congress.  For 
weeks,  nay  months,  the  Southern  leaders  in  the  Senate  and  House  openly 
proclaimed  their  doctrine  of  secession,  argued  the  abstract  and  practical 
questions  connected  with  such  movements,  with  great  formality  and 
solemnity,  presented  their  ordinances  of  secession,  and  under  their  sanc 
tions  withdrew.  This  was  done  in  the  presence  of  excited  and  awe-struck 
audiences.  It  was  done  with  all  the  graces  of  impassioned  and  polished 
eloquence. 

2 


18  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

Terribly  beautiful  the  serpent  lav, 
Wreathed  like  a  coronet  of  gold  and  jewels. 

It  was  done,  without  that  protest  from  any  one  of  the  Republican  mem 
bers  which  their  present  temper  would  seem  to  have  required.  One  by 
one  the  States  thus  became  unrepresented  ;  and  not  a  word,  except  some 
times  debate  on  the  abstract  right  to  secede,  or  tacit  acknowledgment 
that  it  was  best  for  the  time.  No  attempt  was  made  to  arrest  any  one, 
if  we  may  except  an  affidavit  by  some  person  of  no  consequence,  and 
whose  name  cannot  now  be  recalled,  on  the  basis  of  which  he  vainly 
urged  an  arrest  of  DAVIS  and  others  for  treason.  Even  so  prominent  a 
Republican  as  Lieut-Governor  STANTON,  of  Ohio,  to  say  nothing  of  his 
namesake  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  GREELET,  and  Mr.  CHASE,  abetted 
this  movement  by  proposing  no  constraint  upon  the  departing  sisters. 

These  facts,  as  the  forerunners  of  the  mighty  conflict  of  arms,  would 
be  inexplicable  did  we  not  remember  that  from  December,  1860,  until 
March,  1861,  there  was  a  hope,  as  DOUGLAS  and  CRITTENDEN  telegraphed 
to  Georgia,  that  "  the  rights  of  the  South  and  of  every  State  and  section 
would  be  protected  in  the  Union." 

The  first  efforts  at  compromise  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the 
Democratic  Senators  and  members.  Gov.  CORWIN,  Mr.  ADAMS,  Mr. 
EDWARD  JOY  MORRIS,  and  others  in  the  House ;  Senators  CAMERON, 
BAKER,  DEXON,  FOSTER,  COLLAMER,  and  others  in  the  Senate,  were,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  session,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  regarded  as 
not  indifferent  to  a  compromise  which  would  at  least  retain  the  border 
States,  if  it  did  not  stop  the  movement  of  the  Gulf  States. 

The  thirty-sixth  Congress  was  unusually  gifted.  Especially  were  the 
Southern  States  represented  by  their  most  experienced  and  able  men. 
They  hoped  that  the  step  they  were  about  to  take  would  be  bloodless ; 
that  their  array  in  strength,  and  with  the  mien  of  resistance,  would  pre- 
vi-iit  coercion  by  arms.  Even  so  late  as  the  secession  of  Texas,  after 
Judge  Reagan,  one  of  its  representatives,  had  left  his  seat,  he  took  pains 
to  inform  me,  that  he  thought  the  South  would  be  out  only  for  a  season, 
and  that  when  the  excitement  subsided,  and  especially  if  any  guarantees 
were  given  of  the  protection  of  their  rights,  they  would  return.  In  this, 
how  signally  ability  and  experience  failed  to  discern  the  future  !  Man 
kind  generally  reckon  the  greatness  of  men  by  success.  If  this  be  the 
touchstone,  the  vaunted  statesmanship  of  the  South  vanishes.  But  what 
a  company  of  conspicuous  names  answered  to  the  roll-call  on  the  6th  of 
December,  1860  I 

At  the  head  stands  JOHN  C.  BRECKENRIDGE,  offering  his  name,  so 
proudly  connected  with  the  history  of  Kentucky,  to  the  task  of  dismember- 


XXXVI.    CONGRESS — SESSION    1860-'61.  19 

ing  the  Democratic  party,  which  had  once  so  honored  him.  He  was  among 
the  last  to  leave  his  home  to  take  the  sword  for  the  South.  Now  he  is 
a  fugitive  upon  English  soil,  pleading  Avith  his  stricken  confederates  to  do 
the  best  by  submission  to  Federal  rule.  Foremost  in  influence,  if  not  in 
rank,  is  JEFFERSON  DAVIS  ;  how  then  unlike  that  DAVIS  who,  in  Maine,  but 
a  few  years  before,  had  spoken  nobly  for  the  Union  ;  and  how  unlike  that 
DAVIS,  the  captive  of  the  Michigan  cavalry,  and  the  prisoner  at  Fortress 
Monroe  !  His  State  was  not  among  the  foremost  to  secede.  She  waited 
until  the  9th  of  January,  1861,  before  passing  her  ordinance,  and  her 
Senators  lingered  until  the  21st  before  they  withdrew.  It  is  generally 
credited  among  those  who  were  familiar  with  Mr.  DAVIS'S  inclinations, 
that  even  after  the  ordinance  passed  he  was  anxious  to  remain.  There  is 
indubitable  evidence  that  while  in  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  he  was  will 
ing  to  accept  the  compromise  of  Mr.  CRITTENDEN,  and  recede  from  seces 
sion.  That  compromise  failed ;  because,  as  Senator  HALE  said,  on  the 
18th  of  December,  1860,  the  day  it  was  introduced,  it  was  determined  the 
controversy  should  not  be  settled  in  Congress.  When  it  failed,  the  hero 
of  Buena  Vista  became  the  Confederate  leader.  Much  as  he  is  underrated 
now  by  Southern  men  who  opposed  him  during  the  war,  he  was  fitted  to 
be  the  leader  of  just  such  a  revolt.  Every  revolution  has  a  fabulous  or 
actual  hero  conformable  to  the  local  situation,  manners,  and  character  of 
the  people  who  rise.  To  a  rustic  people  like  the  Swiss,  William  Tell, 
with  his  crosi  bow  and  the  apple  ;  to  an  aspiring  race  like  the  Americans, 
WASHINGTON,  with  his  sword  and  the  law,  are,  as  Lamartine  once  said, 
the  symbols  standing  erect  at  the  cradles  of  these  two  distinct  Liberties ! 
JEFFERSON  DAVIS,  haughty,  self-willed,  and  persistent,  full  of  martial  ardor 
and  defiant  eloquence,  is  the  symbol,  both  in  his  character  and  in  his 
present  situation,  of  the  proud  and  impulsive,  but  suppressed  ardors  and 
hopes  of  the  Southern  mind.  His  colleague  in  the  Senate,  Gov.  BROWN, 
was,  according  to  my  recollection,  still  more  reluctant  to  sever  the  con 
nection.  He  was,  even  before  the  Charleston  Convention,  if  not  openly, 
covertly  a  co-worker  with  DOUGLAS  and  others  in  striving  to  preserve 
the  unity  of  the  Democratic  party  and  the  country.  Gov.  BROWN  has 
been  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  and  has  been  outspoken 
in  his  criticism  on  the  conduct  of  the  Confederate  authorities.  I  doubt  if 
he  had  much  heart  or  faith  in  the  secession  movement.  He  was  over 
shadowed  as  a  Senator  by  Mr.  DAVIS  ;  but  was  far  more  approachable, 
and  perhaps  more  kind,  in  his  relations  towards  other  members.  The 
most  truculent  Senator  from  the  South  was  WIGFALL,  of  Texas,  a  man 
of  scarred  face  and  fierce  aspect,  but  with  rare  gifts  of  oratory ;  bitter  at 
times,  if  not  classical,  in  his  denunciations.  But  much  of  his  strong  talk 


20  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

and  eccentric  conduct  was  owing  to  that  indulgence  which  the  "  Hole  in 
the  Wall "  furnished  for  Congressional  wrangle.  Col.  WIGFALL  was  a 
master  drinker.  Had  he  lived  among  the  ancient  Persians,  he  would 
have  been  in  high  esteem.  Darius  Hystaspes,  among  his  other  virtues, 
had  it  recorded  on  his  tombstone,  as  WIGFALL  might  truthfully  upon  his : 
"  Here  lies  a  man,  than  whom  no  one  could  hold  a  greater  quantity  of 
liquor !" 

Next  to  him  in  truculency,  though  not  in  sociality,  was  Senator  IVER- 
SON,  of  Georgia.  He  was  outspoken  and  bold  or  the  sudden  disruption 
of  the  Union.  The  colleague  of  the  latter,  Mr.  TOOMBS,  was  far  more 
amenable  to  reason  than  his  rough  manner  and  boisterous  logic  indicated. 
He  was  a  man  of  commanding  person,  reminding  one,  at  times,  of  MIRA- 
BEAU.  Bating  his  broad  Africanese  dialect,  he  was  often  intensely  elo 
quent  in  the  epigrammatic  force  of  his  expression.  The  Virginia  Senators 
rank  among  the  foremost  in  this  movement.  Much  was  expected  from 
the  moderation  of  Mr.  HUNTER,  but  he  did  little  to  stay  the  Revolution. 
Little  was  expected  of  Mr.  MASON,  and  he  did  less.  The  former  was  a 
calm,  phlegmatic  reasoner ;  the  latter  had  a  defiant,  supercilious,  and 
autocratic  demeanor,  that  conciliated  no  one.  Both  were  imbued  with 
the  heresies  of  the  ultra  CALHOUN  School.  Louisiana  was  represented  by 
the  malicious  and  unscrupulous  SLIDELL,  who  combined  the  fox  with  the 
tiger.  His  savage  and  sneering  threat  to  destroy  the  commerce  of  the 
North  by  privateers,  I  heard.  As  he  delivered  it,  his  manner  reminded 
me  of  Mephistopheles  in  one  of  his  humors  over  some  choice  .anticipated 
deviltry.  But  wno  shall  picture  the  sleek,  plausible,  and  silver-tongued 
JUDAH  P.  BENJAMIN?  His  farewell  speech  was  as  full  of  historic  gar 
bling  and  untruth  as  of  musical  and  regretful  cadences.  As  he  bade  adieu 
to  the  old  Union,  he  drew  from  the  spectators  many  plaudits  for  his  rhet 
oric,  which  he  could  not  evoke  for  his  logic.  Next  to  him,  in  the  suavity 
of  his  manner,  if  not  in  the  cogency  of  his  speech,  was  Judge  CLAY,  of 
Alabama.  He  is  now  in  prison,  having  voluntarily  surrendered.  He  had 
a  bearing  that  was  both  dignified  and  graceful ;  and  although  never  very 
hale  in  health,  was  too  ready  to  assume  his  role  in  the  daring  drama. 
The  other  Senator  from  Alabama,  Gov.  FITZPATRICK,  an  honest  miller 
and  planter  at  home,  was  a  model  of  senatorial  frankness.  I  have  not 
seen  his  name  mentioned  since  the  war.  He  was  nominated  in  1860  on 
the  ticket  with  Douglas  at  Baltimore,  and  but  for  the  incessant  importu 
nity,  if  not  threats,  of  Southern  men  who  thronged  his  room,  to  shake  (as 
they  did)  his  determination,  he  would  have  stood  by  the  Northern  Democ 
racy  in  its  struggle  against  the  deserters  from  its  organization.' 

The  other  Senators  from  the  South  did  not  play  very  prominent  parts  on 


XXXVI.    CONGRESS SESSION    1860-'61.  21 

the  Congressional  stage.  Mr.  CLINGMAN,  of  North  Carolina,  was  expected 
to  fight  the  Union  battle,  but  failed  at  the  critical  time  ;  he  had  large  ex 
perience  in  Congressional  life,  but,  just  elevated  to  the  Senate,  he  rather 
pursued  what  he  believed  was  the  popular  doctrine.  He  has  since  been 
a  Colonel  in  the  rebel  service ;  he  is  the  only  Southern  Senator,  unless  it 
may  be  WIGFALL,  TOOMBS,  and  CHESNUT,  who  has  had  any  military  ex 
perience.  The  Senators  from  Delaware,  BAYARD  and  SAULSBURY,  were 
able  men  ;  the  latter  is  still  Senator  ;  the  former,  a  logical  thinker,  accom 
plished  in  Constitutional  law,  and  a  believer  in  the  unforced  association 
of  the  States,  retired  from  his  place  disgusted  with  that  public  opinion 
which  would  not  allow  free  speech  as  a  means  to  restrain  usurpation,  and 
conclude  the  war.  The  Senators  from  South  Carolina  did  not  appear  at 
the  opening  of  Congress.  Although  that  State  did  not  pass  her  ordinance 
until  the  17th  of  December,  her  Senators  had  resigned  on  the  preceding 
10th.  The  Senator  from  Tennessee,  Mr.  NICHOLSON,  was  no  speaker  ; 
he  did  not  make  his  mark ;  he  had  been,  however,  a  successful  editor. 
The  other  Senator,  ANDREW  JOHNSON,  evidently  made  his  mark.  Although 
he  had  fought  the  battle  in  Tennessee  for  BRECKENRIDGE  against  both 
BELL  and  DOUGLAS,  he  came  to  this  session  as  if  he  were  a  novus  homo. 
He  had  great  will  and  tenacity  of  purpose  ;  his  efforts  were  vigorous  and 
effective  in  repelling,  from  a  Southern  standpoint,  the  aggressive  debate  of 
the  secessionists  of  the  Senate ;  his  elocution  was  more  forcible  than  fine 
— more  discursive  than  elegant ;  he  hammered  away  with  stalwart 
strength  upon  his  thought,  until  he  brought  it  into  shape.  He  rarely 
failed  to  produce  the  impression  he  intended.  He  is  destined  to  act  the 
greatest  part  in  our  future.  DOUGLAS  frequently  expressed  his  regret  that 
Mr.  JOHNSON  had  not  made  his  blows  tell  earlier  in  the  hot  conflict  of 
ideas  in  1860,  when  CRITTENDEN  and  himself  were  championing  the  inter 
ests  of  all  sections,  and  striving  to  avert  in  time  the  calamities  which  were 
pressed  by  extremists,  North  and  South.  The  Senators  from  Maryland, 
as  from  Kentucky,  like  their  States,  occupied  middle  ground,  and  were 
ever  ready  and  eager  to  mediate.  Would  that  the  same  could  be  said  for 
Arkansas  !  It  was  understood  that  at  least  one  of  her  Senators,  Mr.  SE 
BASTIAN,  was  reluctant  to  follow  South  Carolina ;  but  the  other,  Mr. 
JODNSON,  was  nothing  loath  thus  to  act.  He  has  recently  offered  himself 
to  the  authorities,  in  a  characteristic  letter,  frank  and  manly.  Of  the 
Missouri  Senators,  Mr.  POLK  went  South,  where  his  friends  did  not  expect 
him  to  go ;  and  Mr.  GREEN,  unexpectedly,  remained  North  in  the  seclu 
sion  of  private  life.  The  former  had  been  Governor  of  his  State,  but 
was  not  otherwise  greatly  distinguished.  The  latter  was  a  worthy  foe- 
man  of  DOUGLAS  in  the  fierce  struggle  on  the  Lecompton  question.  Of  the 


22  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

Northern  Senators  who  were  supposed  to  be  most  nearly  allied  with  the 
South,  were  GWIN  of  California,  LANE  of  Oregon  and  BRIGHT  of  Indiana. 
The  Senators  from  Florida  were  never  regarded,  however  they  seemed, 
as  favorable  to  the  secession  movement ;  though  the  Representative  from 
Florida,  Judge  HAWKINS,  was  the  first  to  urge  the  withdrawal  of  his 
State  as  a  reason  for  his  indifference  to  compromise,  and  his  refusal  to 
serve  on  the  committee.  Messrs.  MALLOKY  and  YULEE  have  since  been 
somewhat  conspicuous  in  the  rebellion.  Mr.  MALLORY  has  been  Secre 
tary  of  the  Confederate  Navy,  but  neither  of  them  exerted  any  considera 
ble  influence  at  Washington  in  the  direction  of  disunion  during  the  winter 
of  1860-'61. 

The  Republican  Senators  of  the  thirty-sixth  Congress  who  were  most 
noted  in  the  parliamentary  conflict,  were  HAMLIN,  FESSENDEN,  HALE, 
CLARK,  COLLAMER,  WILSON,  SUMNER,  CHANDLER,  SEWARD,  CAMERON, 
WADE,  TRUMBULL,  DOOLITTLE,  and  BAKER — a  galaxy  of  ability.  Against 
these,  as  against  the  other  extremists,  stood  DOUGLAS,  CRITTENDEN, 
JOHNSON,  PUGH,  LATHAM,  FITCH,  THOMPSON,  RICE,  and  POWELL.  How 

e  tribunes  labored  to  save  the  nation,  only  those  present  at  their  con 
ferences  know.  I  was  often  myself  surprised  at  the  speeches  of  DOUGLAS 
and  PUGH  especially,  mitigating  the  effect  of  the  personal  liberty  bills, 
and  other  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  so  as  to  remove  from  the  South 
ern  mind  their  hatred  of  the  North  thus  engendered.  Few  in  number, 
these  men  did  all  they  could,  even  to  the  last  Sabbath  evening  before  the 
adjournment,  when  Mr.  CRITTENDEN  electrified  all  by  the  glorious  beauty 
of  his  last  earnest,  though  ineffectual  appeal  for  conciliation  ! 

In  the  House,  the  elements  of  disunion  can  be  discerned  lying  like  geo 
logical  strata  in  sections  and  States.  The  State  of  Maryland  furnished  no 
member  who  was  a  secessionist  per  se ;  although  of  the  delegation  Messrs. 
KUNKEL  and  HUGHES  seemed  to  be  most  sympathetic  with  the  South.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  Kentucky  ;  though  since,  both  BURNETT  and  SYMMES 
have  been  Confederate  Senators.  They  were  both  eager  for  compromise 
during  the  winter  of  1860,  and  BURNETT  even  returned  to  the  next  Con 
gress  in  1861.  He  is  now  under  bonds  for  treason.  Virginia  had  GAR- 
NETT,  DE  JARNETTE,  and  EDMUNDSON,  most  disposed  toward  a  Southern 
Confederacy.  BOCOCKE,  SMITH,  JENKINS,  LEAKE,  and  others,  were  deter 
mined  to  go  with  the  State.  They  did  not  labor  to  foster  compromise. 
PRYOR  was  at  times  with,  and  at  times  against  us.  I  do  not  think  he  was 
as  eager  as  he  seemed  for  a  separate  Confederacy.  His  career  is  known, 
with  its  vicissitudes.  The  fate  of  JENKINS,  who  was  a  classmate  of  mine, 
was  what  might  have  been  expected.  He  fought  bravely  and  died  cour 
ageously  at  the  head  of  his  cavalry.  Rich  in  a  patrimony  of  splendid 


XXXVI.    CONGRESS SESSION    1860-'61.  23 

farms  along  the  Ohio  and  Kanawha,  surrounded  by  friends  who  elected 
him  to  Congress  when  barely  of  the  constitutional  age,  just  married  to  a 
daughter  of  the  diplomatist  Bowlin,  of  Paraguayan  memory,  and  com 
ing  from  that  part  of  Virginia  where  secession  was  the  exception,  his 
fate  has  seemed  to  be  as  unnatural  as  it  is  sad.  Ex-Governor  SMITH,  of 
Virginia,  was  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  in  the  delegation.  He  was  a 
fluent  debater,  ready  at  repartee,  and  brave  to  a  fault.  I  am  indebted  to 
him  for  aiding  in  the  special  exchange  of  prisoners.  Since  the  war,  when  I 
could  get  little  or  no  aid  from  Congress  or  our  own  Government,  and  scarcely 
a  vote  on  my  resolutions  urging  exchange,  till  too  late  to  save  the  lives  of 
thousands,  I  received  prompt  and  generous  aid  from  this  inveterate  insur 
gent,  which  President  LINCOLN,  when  informed  of  it  by  me,  reciprocated 
with  the  remark  that  "  he  would  not  be  outdone  by  '  Extra  Billy '  in  ex 
tra  kindness."  But  the  man  among  Virginians  who  labored  most  nobly 
for  the  Union,  was  JOHN  S.  MILLSON  of  Norfolk.  BOTELEB  began  the 
game  good  work  by  moving  for  the  Committee  of  Thirty-three  ;  but  to 
MILLSON,  more  than  to  any  one,  did  we  owe  the  vote  of  Virginia  in  favor 
of  the  Union  given  in  February,  1861.  I  franked,  at  his  request,  many 
thousands  of  his  unanswerable  speech  to  Virginians.  It  was  complained 
of  us,  by  some  of  the  Hotspurs,  that  we  had  had  the  census  copied,  to 
flood  that  State  with  MILLSON'S  speech.  This  was  true.  In  this  work 
no  one  gave  to  General  MILLSON  more  effective  aid  than  SHERRARD 
CLEMENS,  of  Wheeling,  whose  eloquence  never  did  better  execution, 
whose  zeal  never  flagged,  and  whose  Unionism  never  wavered.  In  looking 
over  the  names  of  members  from  other  States,  I  wish  I  could  find  more 
than  I  do  of  whom  this  may  be  said.  Not  counting  Tennessee,  led  by 
NELSON  and  MAYNARD,  Kentucky  with  MALLORY  at  its  head,  and  Missouri, 
led  by  the  gallant  PHELPS  ;  saving  JOSHUA  HILL  of  Georgia,  HOUSTON  and 
COBB  of  Alabama,  GILMER  and  VANCE  of  North  Carolina,  BOULIGNY  of 
Louisiana,  HAMILTON  of  Texas,  and  excepting  such  men  as  BRANCH  of 
North  Carolina,  REUBEN  DAVIS  of  Mississippi,  BOYCE  of  South  Carolina, 
RUST  of  Arkansas,  and  TAYLOR  of  Louisiana,  distrustful  of  secession  as 
the  cure  for  Southern  ills,  though  less  pronounced  in  their  sentiments — 
excepting  these  and  a  few  others  not  so  conspicuous,  the  whole  array  of 
Southern  talent,  led  by  MILES,  GARTRELL,  PUGH  (of  Alabama),  Bo- 
COCKE,  GARNETT,  SMITH,  PRYOR,  CRAWFORD,  CURRY,  HINDMAN,  McRAE, 
BARKSDALE,  LAMAR,  WRIGHT,  and  KEITT — nearly  all,  except  PUGH  and 
SMITH,  young  men — was  thrown  in  favor  of  precipitate  action,  without  any 
Zealand  little  attempt  to  compromise.  Even  such  men  asWiNSLOw,  SMITH, 
and  BRANCH,  of  N.  C.,  and  REAGAN,  of  Texas,  elected  as  conservatives 
against  the  disunion  sentiments  of  their  districts,  cowered  before  this  band 


24:  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

of  Southern  talent  and  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  from  their  homes — 
inspired  by  hopes  of  independence.  The  wives,  daughters,  and  other  fe 
male  connections  of  Southern  members,  were  in  the  galleries  constantly,  to 
cheer  by  their  presence  and  smiles  the  fervid  efforts  of  these  secession  or 
ators.  For  impetuous  debate,  there  was  LAMAR,  of  Mississippi,  scholarly 
and  defiant ;  for  logical  humor,  Governor  McRAE,  of  the  same  State,  suc 
cessor  to  Gen.  QUITMAN,  one  of  the  happiest  of  speakers,  an  original  slave- 
trade  secessionist,  though  educated  in  Ohio  ;  for  parliamentary  skirmish 
ing,  there  was  BOCOCKE,  of  Virginia  ;  for  vituperative  philippic,  there  was 
ROGER  A.  PRYOR  ;  for  courteous  and  beautiful  elocution,  ALEXANDER  R. 
BOTELER,  of  Harper's  Ferry ;  for  swaggering  bravado,  toned  with  an 
elegant  phraseology,  there  was  the  vain  and  clever  KEITT  ;  for  smooth  and 
trenchant  dialectics,  there  was  PORCHER  MILES,  of  Charleston,  who  earned 
his  place  in  Congress  by  his  care  of  the  sick  in  the  fever-stricken  city  of 
Norfolk  in  1855 ;  for  statesmanslike  and  vigorous  debate,  there  was 
BRANCH,  of  North  Carolina ;  for  broad  wit  and  hearty  blows,  there  was 
GILMER,  of  North  Carolina ;  for  subtle  ratiocination  of  the  Calhoun  pat 
tern,  there  was  PUGH,  of  Alabama,  who  had  all  the  pith,  without  the  ar 
tistic  polish,  of  his  colleague  CURRY  ;  for  offensive  and  vivacious  readiness, 
there  was  II  INDMAN,  who  almost  alone  of  these  leaders  has  been  conspic 
uous  in  the  war.  BRANCH,  RUFFIN.  KEITT,  JENKINS,  BARKSDALE,  and 
RUST  have  had  important  commands,  and  have  all  met  that  death  of 
which  they  vaunted  so  much,  rather  than  submit  to  the  Federal  authority. 

In  looking  over  this  roll,  I  cannot  but  regret  that  so  much  of  genius, 
energy,  and  goodness  have  been  misled  to  their  own  ruin  and  that  of  their 
States.  Among  the  most  eloquent  of  this  remarkable  body  not  thus  mis 
led,  was  NELSON,  of  Tennessee  ;  the  most  eccentric  and  indomitable  genius 
for  politics,  was  EMERSON  ETIIERIDGE  ;  the  clearest  heads  for  political 
economy,  metaphysical  refinement,  and  historic  research,  were  WILLIAM 
W.  BOYCE  and  JOHN  S.  MILLSON. 

If  we  go  to  the  Republican  side  of  the  House,  we  find  CORWIN,  of 
Ohio,  incomparable  for  his  fun,  his  pathos,  and  his  soul-stirring  eloquence  ; 
CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS,  with  no  readiness  as  a  speaker,  but  a  profound 
thinker  ;  ELI  THAYER,  as  practical  as  a  steam-engine,  but  with  all  his  vast 
motive  power  occasionally  getting  out  of  order ;  MORRILL,  of  Vermont, 
whose  skill  in  tariff  calculations  never  flagged  during  the  excitements  of 
the  war  ;  ROSCOE  CONKLING,  with  rare  gifts  of  ready  and  pure  elocution  ; 
JoHNlIiCKMAN,  of  Pennsylvania,  straightforward  and  dashing,  with  a  schol 
ar's  taste  hidden  under  the  toga ;  THADDEUS  STEVENS,  the  Metternich  of 
Republicanism ;  GALUSHA  A.  GROW,  quick  in  the  manual  and  saucy  in 
bravado  toward  his  opponents;  STANTON,  SHERMAN,  and  BiNGiiAM,from 


XXXVI.    CONGRESS SESSION    1860-'61.  25 

Ohio,  all  men  of  experience  in  legislation,  and  leaders  of  tlie  then  rising 
party  ;  GOLF  AX,  of  Indiana,  who,  like  GROW,  rose  to  prominence  by  his 
championing  with  much  fluency  and  energy  the  pietistic  humanitarian- 
ism  of  his  party ;  LOVE  JOY,  of  Illinois,  who  cultivated  an  ignorance  of 
parliamentary  law  in  order  to  say  the  most  indecorous  things,  and  whose 
rugged  vehemence,  if  not  oratory,  was  taken  for  it  by  those  who  look  more 
to  the  manner  than  the  substance.  These,  with  the  affable  Speaker,  PENNING- 
TON,  made  up  the  phalanx  upon  which  the  Southern  cohort  hurled  itself 
in  debate.  As  I  recall  the  scene  which  took  place  at  my  desk  between 
KEITT  and  GROW,  during  the  preceding  Congress,  after  the  hour  of  mid 
night,  when  the  passions  of  the  time  were  incarnate  in  that  Congress  and 
at  that  hour ;  as  I  repicture  the  fierce  clutch  and  glaring  eye,  and  the 
struggle  between  these  heady  champions,  there  come  trooping  down  the 
aisles  of  memory,  as  there  came  trooping  down  the  actual  aisles  of  the 
House,  the  belligerent  members,  with  WASHBURNE  of  Illinois,  and  POT 
TER  of  Wisconsin,  leading  the  one  extreme,  and  BARKSDALE  and  LAMAR 
leading  the  other  ;  then  comes  the  melee — the  struggle,  the  pale  face  of 
the  Speaker  calling  to  order,  the  serge ant-at-arms  rushing  into  the  area 
before  the  clerk's  desk,  the  mace  as  his  symbol  of  authority,  with  its  silver 
eagle,  moving  up  and  down  on  the  wave  of  passion  and  conflict ;  then  the 
dead  hush  of  the  hot  heart,  and  glare  of  defiance  across  the  hall !  As 
this  scene  is  revivified,  looking  at  it  through  the  red  storm  of  the  war,  I 
cannot  but  think  that  then  and  there  was  epitomized  all  that  has  made 
that  war  bloody  and  desperate.  Then,  too,  there  rise  up  the  forms  of 
those  who  were  then  accounted  moderate  and  middle  men,  like  DAVIS 
and  HOLMAN  of  Indiana,  MCCLERNANC  and  LOGAN  of  Illinois,  MALLORY 
and  STEVENSON  of  Kentucky,  PENDLETON  and  VALLANDIGHAM  of  Ohio, 
FLORENCE  and  MONTGOMERY  of  Pennsylvania,  SICKLES  and  COCHRANE 
of  New  York,  who  stood,  like  DOUGLAS,  BIGLER,  LATHAM,  PUGH,  JOHN 
SON,  and  CRITTENDEN,  in  the  Senate,  as  a  breakwater  against  the  contend 
ing  tides. 

From  these  disjecta  membra  of  this  remarkable  Congress,  the  reader 
may  gather  some  idea  of  the  force  and  energy,  tact  and  eloquence,  passion 
and  prejudice,  which  composed  it. 

Some  of  the  great  questions  which  arose  were  foreshadowed  in  the 
President's  Message  ;  for  instance,  the  power  to  coerce  a  State.  But  there 
were  other  questions,  concerning  the  acquisition  of  territory,  and  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  territories ;  the  effect  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court ;  various  amendments  of  the  Constitution  so  as  to  prohibit  Congress 
and  the  people  from  impairing  the  right  of  property  in  slaves,  etc. ;  the 
fugitive  slave  law  ;  fugitives  from  justice  ;  the  right  of  transit  in  free  States 


26  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

of  persons  with  slaves  ;  the  nullifying  acts  of  State  Legislatures  ;  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery  and  the  internal  slave  trade  ;  changes  by  constitutional 
amendments  in  the  Executive  office  and  veto  power  ;  the  restoration  of  the 
equilibrium  between  the  slave  and  free  States ;  the  voluntary  division 
of  slave  States  into  two  or  more  States ;  giving  the  slave  States  a  vote 
on  all  questions  of  slavery  ;  making  the  amendments  proposed  unamend- 
able  ;  granting  to  the  States  power  to  appoint  the  Federal  officers  in  their 
midst ;  the  peaceable  withdrawal  of  States,  and  apportionment  of  the 
public  debt ;  dual  Senates  and  dual  Executive ;  the  organization  at  once 
of  the  remaining  territories ;  the  foreign  slave  trade ;  the  acquisition  of 
foreign  territory  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  ;  questions  as  to  ordinances  of 
secession,  and  their  effect ;  preventing  Africans  from  ever  becoming { 
citizens ;  a  constitutional  convention ;  these  and  many  other  questions 
were  debated,  and  referred  to  the  Committees  of  Thirteen  in  the  Senate 
and  Thirty-three  in  the  House.  They  were  the  result  of  anxious  cogita 
tion  on  the  problems  which  threatened  to  dispart  the  country.  They 
remain  upon  the  records  to  illustrate  the  variety  and  magnitude  of  the  in- 
terqsts  springing  out  of  the  institution  of  slavery,  and  the  duplex  charac 
ter  of  our  State  and  Federal  Governments.  They  were,  for  the  last  time, 
thrust  into  the  legislative  tribunal  for  tranquil  solution,  before  the  conflict 
in  the  forum  of  reason  should  be  replaced  by 

"  the  intestine  shock 

And  furious  close  of  civil  butchery." 

The  public  record  shows  what  result  was  reached  by  these  committees, 
or  rather  how  resultless  were  their  labors.  Mr.  CORWIN,  for  a  majority, 
presented  his  resolutions  and  bills  ;  Mr.  ADAMS  declined  to  recommend  even 
his  own  propositions,  inasmuch  as  he  believed  that  the  South  would  ac 
cept  nothing  that  he  could  offer.  WASHBURNE  of  Wisconsin,  and  TAP- 
PAN  of  New  Hampshire,  of  the  committee,  offered  nothing  by  way  of 
compromise.  The  conservative  men,  with  TAYLOR,  PHELPS,  HUST, 
WHITELY,  WINSLOW,  NELSON,  HAMILTON,  and  others  of  the  committee, 
wished  to  go  further  than  Governor  CORWIN.  They  recommended  the 
CRITTENDEN  proposition.  The  votes  on  the  CORWIN  measures  were  strange 
ly  incongruous.  The  vote  on  the  CRITTENDEN  proposition  was  well  de 
fined,  but  is  not  so  well  understood.  From  the  frequency  of  inquiries 
since  the  war  as  to  this  latter  vote,  the  people  were  eager  to  know  upon 
whom  to  fix  the  responsibility  of  its  failure.  It  may  as  well  be  stated 
that  all  other  propositions,  whether  of  the  Peace  Convention,  or  the  border 
State  projct,  or  the  measures  of  the  committees,  were  comparatively  of 
no  moment ;  for  the  CRITTENDEN  proposition  was  the  only  one  which  could 
have  arrested  the  struggle.  It  would  have  received  a  larger  vote  than 


XXXVI.    CONGRESS — SESSION   1860-'61.  27 

any  other.  It  would  have  had  more  effect  in  moderating  Southern  excitQ- 
ment.  Even  DAVIS,  TOOMBS,  and  others  of  the  Gulf  States,  would  have 
accepted  it.  I  have  talked  with  Mr.  CRITTENDEN  frequently  on  this  point. 
Not  only  has  he  confirmed  the  public  declarations  of  DOUGLAS  and  PUGH, 
and  the  speech  of  TOOMBS  himself,  to  this  effect,  but  he  said  it  was  so  un 
derstood  in  committee.  At  one  time,  while  the  committee  was  in  session, 
he  said  :  "  Mr.  TOOMBS,  will  this  compromise,  as  a  remedy  for  all  wrongs 
and  apprehensions,  be  acceptable  to  you?"  Mr.  TOOMBS  with  some 
profanity  replied,  "  Not  by  a  good  deal ;  but  my  State  will  accept  it,  and 

I  will  follow  my  State  to  ."     And  he  did. 

I  will  not  open  the  question  whether  it  was  wise  then  to  offer  accom 
modations  ;  it  may  not  be  profitable  now  to  ask  whether  the  millions  of 
young  men  whose  bodies  are  maimed,  or  whose  bones  are  decaying  under 
the  sod  of  the  South,  and  the  heavy  load  of  public  debt  under  which  we 
sweat  and  toil,  have  their  compensation  in  black  liberty.  Nor  will  I  dis 
cuss  whether  the  blacks  have  been  bettered  by  their  precipitate  freedom, 
passing,  as  so  many  have,  from  slavery  through  starvation  and  suffering  to 
death.  There  is  no  comfort  in  the  reflection  that  the  negroes  will  be  extermi 
nated,  with  the  extermination  of  slavery.  The  real  point  is,  could  not  this 
Union  have  been  made  permanent  by  timely  settlement,  instead  of  cemented 
by  fraternal  blood  and  military  rule  ?  By  an  equitable  partition  of  the  terri 
tory  this  was  possible.  We  had  then  1,200,000  square  miles.  The  CRIT 
TENDEN  proposition  would  have  given  the  North  900,000  of  these  square 
miles,  and  applied  the  Chicago  doctrines  to  that  quantity.  It  would  have 
left  the  remaining  fourth,  substantially,  to  be  carved  out  as  free  or  slave 
States,  at  the  option  of  the  people  when  the  States  were  admitted.  This 
proposition  the  radicals  denounced.  Notwithstanding  the  then  President 
elect  was  in  a  minority  of  a  million  of  the  popular  vote,  they  were  de 
termined,  as  Mr.  CHASE  wrote  to  Portsmouth,  Ohio,  from  the  Peace  Con 
vention,  to  use  the  power  while  they  had  it,  and  prevent  a  settlement.  It 
has  been  stated,  to  rid  the  Republicans  of  the  odium  of  not  averting  the 
war  when  that  was  possible,  that  the  Northern  members  tendered  to  the 
Southern  the  CRITTENDEN  Compromise,  which  the  South  rejected.  This 
is  untrue.  It  was  tendered  by  Southern  Senators  and  Northern  Demo 
crats  to  the  Republicans.  They,  in  conjunction  with  some  half  dozen  re 
cusant  Southern  Senators,  rejected  it.  It  was  voted  upon  but  once  in  the 
House,  when  it  received  80  votes  against  113.  These  eighty  votes  were 
exclusively  Democrats  and  Southern  Americans,  like  GILMER,  VANCE,  and 
others.  Mr.  BRIGGS,  of  New  York,  was  the  only  one  not  a  Democrat 
who  voted  for  it.  He  had  been  an  old  Whig  and  never  a  Republican. 
The  Republican  roll,  beginning  with  ADAMS  and  ending  with  WOODRUFF, 


28  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

was  a  unit  against  it.  Intermingled  with  them  was  one  Southern  ex 
tremist,  General  HINDMAN,  who  desired  no  settlement.  There  were 
many  Southern  men  who  did  not  vote,  believing  that  unless  the  Republi 
cans,  who  were  just  acceding  to  power,  favored  it,  its  adoption  would  be  a 
delusion. 

The  plan  adopted  by  the  Republican  Senators-  to  defeat  it,  was  by 
amendment  and  postponement.  On  the  14th  and  15th  of  January  they 
cast  all  their  votes  against  its  being  taken  up  ;  and  on  the  16th,  when  it 
came  up,  Mr.  CLARK,  of  New  Hampshire,  moved  to  strike  it  out  and  in 
sert  something  which  he  knew  would  neither  be  successful  nor  acceptable. 
The  vote  on  Clark's  amendment  was  25  to  23  ;  every  "  ay "  being  a 
Republican,  and  every  "  no,"  except  KENNEDY  and  CRITTENDEN  (Ameri 
cans),  being  Democrats.  On  this  occasion,  six  Southern  Senators,  in 
cluding  BENJAMIN  and  WIGFALL,  did  not  vote.  They  could  have  de 
feated  Mr.  CLARK'S  motion.  In  reference  to  this  vote,  we  have  the  tes 
timony  of  President  JOHNSON,  in  a  speech  on  the  expulsion  of  Senator 
BRIGHT,  January  31,  1862,  to  this  effect: 

"  I  sat  right  behind  Mr.  BENJAMIN,  and  I  am  not  sure  that  my  worthy 
friend  [Mr.  LATHAM]  was  not  close  by  when  he  refused  to  vote ;  and  I 
said  to  him,  '  Mr.  BENJAMIN,  why  do  you  not  vote  ?  Why  not  save 
this  proposition,  and  see  if  we  cannot  bring  the  country  to  it? '  He  gave 
me  rather  an  abrupt  answer,  and  said  he  would  control,  his  own  actions 
without  consulting  me  or  anybody  else.  Said  I :  i  Vote  and  show  your 
self  an  honest  man.'  As  soon  as  the  vote  was  taken,  he  and  others  tele 
graphed  South,  '  We  cannot  get  any  compromise.' " 

Doubtless  the  rest  of  the  six  Senators  had  the  same  sinister  motive 
for  their  reticence  in  voting  and  readiness  in  telegraphing.  But  their  re 
creancy  does  not  excuse  the  body  of  the  Republicans.  Nor  do  I  know 
that  now,  since  the  collapse  of  the  rebellion,  they  are  so  anxious  to  be  ex 
cused.  I  only  write  the  iacts  of  history,  not  to  justify  or  condemn. 

When  this  result  was  announced,  universal  gloom  prevailed.  The 
people  favored  this  compromise.  Petitions  by  thousands  of  citizens  were 
showered  upon  Congress,  for  its  passage.  Had  it  received  a  majority 
only,  they  would  have  rallied  and  sustained  those  who  desired  peace  and 
Union.  One  more  earnest  appeal  was  made  to  the  Republicans.  General 
CAMERON  answered  it  by  moving  a  reconsideration.  His  motion  came  up 
on  the  18th,  when  he  voted  against  his  own  motion.  It  was  carried,  how 
ever,  over  the  votes  of  the  Republicans,  although  WIGFALL  voted  with 
them.  When  it  was  again  up  on  the  2d  of  March,  1861,  the  Southern 
States  were  nearly  all  gone ;  even  then  it  was  lost  by  one  vote  only. 
But  on  that  occasion  all  the  Democrats  were  for,  and  all  the  Repub- 


XXXVI.    CONGRESS — SESSION   1860-'61.  29 

licans  against  it.  The  truth  is,  there  was  nothing  but  sneers  and  scepti 
cism  from  the  Republicans  at  any  settlement.  They  broke  down  every 
proposition.  They  took  the  elements  of  conciliation  out  of  the  Peace  Con 
vention  before  it  assembled.  Senators  HARLAN  and  CHANDLER  were  es 
pecially  active  in  preparing  that  Convention  for  a  failure.  If  every  South 
ern  man  and  every  Northern  Democrat  had  voted  for  this  proposition,  it 
would  have  required  some  nine  Republicans  for  the  requisite  two-thirds. 
Where  were  they?  Dreaming  with  Mr.  SEWARD  of  a  sixty-days  struggle, 
or  arranging  for  the  division  of  the  patronage  of  Administration.  •  The  only 
Southern  Senators  who  seemed  against  any  settlement  were  IVERSON  and 
WIGFALL  ;  that  no  man  will  challenge  if  he  will  refer  to  the  Globe  (1st 
part,  35th  Congress,  p.  270)  for  the  testimony  of  DOUGLAS  and  PUGH, 
and  to  Mr.  BIGLER'S  Bucks  County  speech,  September  17,  1863.  The  lat 
ter  knew  it  to  be  true,  when  he  said  that — 

"  When  the  struggle  was  at  its  height  in  Georgia  between  ROBERT 
TOOMBS  for  secession,  and  A.  H.  STEPHENS  against  it,  had  those  men  in 
the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  who  are  now  so  blameless  in*  their  own  esti 
mation,  given  us  their  votes,  or  even  three  of  them,  STEPHENS  would  have 
defeated  TOOMBS,  and  secession  would  have  been  prostrated.  I  heard 
Mr.  TOOMBS  say  to  Mr.  DOUGLAS  that  the  result  in  Georgia  was  staked 
on  the  action  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen.  If  it  accepted  the  CRITTEN- 
DEN  proposition,  STEPHENS  would  defeat  him ;  if  not,  he  would  carry  the 
State  out  by  40,000  majority.  The  three  votes  from  the  Republican  side 
would  have  carried  it  at  any"  time ;  but  Union  and  peace  in  the  balance 
against  the  Chicago  platform  were  sure  to  be  found  wanting." 

If  other  testimony  were  wanting,  I  would  ask  a  suspension  of  judgment 
until  those  facts,  better  known  to  Southern  men,  transpire.  The  inter 
course  about  to  be  reestablished  between  the  sections  will  cumulate  the 
proof.  It  will  also  bring  to  the  light  many  facts  showing  that,  while 
President  BUCHANAN  was  working  for  the  Peace  Conference,  while  Vir 
ginia  had  been  gained  to  our  side  with  her  ablest  men,  there  were  even 
then  in  the  Cabinet  those  who  not  only  encouraged  revolt,  but  foiled  by 
letter  and  speech  the  efforts  of  the  Unionists  at  Washington  and  Rich 
mond.  Those  who  sought  to  counteract  the  schemes  of  secession,  were 
themselves  checkmated  by  men  now  in  authority.  These  letters  and  acts 
are  referred  to  in  the  recent  speech  of  General  BLAIR.  They  will  be  and 
should  be  brought  into  the  sunshine,  if  only  to  vindicate  the  true  Union 
men  of  that  dark  hour,  and  to  condemn  those  who  have  since  made  so 
much  pretension  with  so  much  zealotry,  coupled  with  unexampled  cruelty 
and  tyranny. 

Whether,  therefore,  you  consult  the  public  record,  or  go  beyond  its  veil 


30  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

and  consult  those  who  knew  the  elements  at  work  in  the  committees  and 
in  social  life,  one  leading  fact  always  stands  stark  and  bold  before  you : 
that  with  the  aid  of  a  handful  of  secessionists  per  se,  the  whole  body  of  the 
Republicans  were,  as  President  JOHNSON  described  Senator  CLARK,  when 
he  defeated  the  CRITTENDEN  resolution  by  his  amendment,  "  acting  out 
their  policy."  In  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  that  policy  was  devel 
oped  ;  it  was  the  destruction  of  slavery  at  the  peril  of  war  and  disunion  ; 
/>r,  as  Senator  DOUGLAS  expressed  it,  "a  disruption  of  the  Union,  believ 
ing  it  would  draw  after  it,  as  an  inevitable  consequence,  civil  war,  servile 
insurrections,  and  finally  the  utter  extermination  of  slavery  in  all  the 
Southern  States." 


SPEECHES. 


i. 

FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC. 


COMPARISON  OF  EXPENSES  BETWEEN   1858  AND   1864,  AND  OF  THE 
TAXATION  OF  ENGLAND  AND  AMERICA  IN   1858. 

I  INSERT  the  following  extracts,  not  so  much  for  their  importance,  as  to 
show  the  astounding  disparity  of  our  revenues  and  expenditures  between 
the  years  1858  and  1864.  It  is  curious  to  see  how  sixty-five  millions 
startled  us  in  the  one  year,  and  how  contemptible  it  seemed  six  years 
later  !  The  first  speech  was  delivered  on  the  12th  of  June,  1858,  and  the 
last  on  the  2d  day  of  June,  1864 : 

Gentlemen  cannot  complain  of  our  withholding  protection  to  ocean 
commerce.  The  West  had  been  generous  in  this  regard.  If  she  were 
more  niggardly,  she  might  have  had  mere  consideration.  She  does  not 
"  calculate  "  so  much  as  our  Atlantic  States.  It  is  high  time  she  began 
it.  Her  own  commerce,  on  river  and  lake,  far  exceeds  that  of  the  sea 
board  States.  Her  commerce  is  not  so  much  endangered  from  the  hostili 
ty  of  other  nations ;  but  it  is  in  equal  danger  from  the  elements,  from 
snag  and  rock,  from  storm  and  fire.  I  voted  your  ten  sloops — not  so 
much  because  I  feared  a  war  as  because  I  wanted  the  peace  kept,  and 
your  commerce  protected  from  outrage  by  search  and  seizure.  * 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  the  splendor  of  a 
nation  does  not  lie  in  the  wealth  and  extravagance  of  its  pamp'ered  me 
tropolis.  The  true  glory  of  this  nation  is  to  be  found  elsewhere.  Her  new 
States,  made  up  of  men  of  simple  habits,  without  artificial  wants — these 
are  the  blossoms  and  fruits  of  our  "  secular  majesty  and  magnificent 
strength."  I  am  opposed  to  all  these  extravagant  expenditures  for  the 


32  EIGHT   YEAE8   itf   CONGRESS. 

benefit  of  one  section  and  of  this  metropolis.     Let  our  appropriations  take 
a  wider  scope  and  a  more  useful  object. 

In  discussing  unjust  and  unequal  appropriations,  Mr.  Cox  said : 

There  is  a  power  arising  in  the  West  which  will  one  day — not  far 
ahead,  either — after  the  next  census,  in  1860,  perhaps,  correct  these 
evils,  while  it  looks  after  its  own  interests,  so  shamelessly  neglected.  A 
few  ud monitory  facts  in  this  connection  may  not  be  amiss.  The  present 
rate  of  increase  of  the  population  of  the  western  States,  particularly  of  the 
northwestern,  indicates  that  by  1863,  when  the  new  congressional  ap 
portionment  will  be  in  operation,  there  will  be  on  this  floor,  representing 
what  may  be  called  western  interests,  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  mem 
bers  out  of  two  hundred  and  forty-one,  if  such  should  be  the  number  of 
the  House.  Whatever  the  number,  those  States  which  have  a  common 
interest  in  western  agriculture  and  commerce  will  have  a  preponderance. 
The  Northwest  alone  will  outnumber  New  York  and  New  England. 
Where  it  now  has  fifty-three,  it  will  have,  under  the  next  census,  eighty 
— nearly  one-third  of  the  whole  number  of  Representatives.  This  will 
command  a  controlling  influence.  It  is  to  be  hoped  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
stop  the  suicidal  disunion  cry  of  North  and  South.  Let  the  West  repose 
in  its  might.  It  can  afford  to  wait.  The  lines  of  empire  are  on  the  face 
of  the  cradled  Hercules. 

Thirty-eight  years  ago  General  Cass  visited  a  village  of  ten  or  twelve 
houses,  containing  sixty  people,  by  means  of  a  bark  canoe,  by  way  of  the 
Wisconsin  River  and  Green  Bay.  That  village  of  1820  is  the  Chicago  of 
1858,  with  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  people.  It  is  the  terminus  of 
more  railways  than  any  other  city  of  the  Union,  and  has  become  the  great 
'grain  depot  of  the  world  !  This  marvellous  increase  of  one  city  is  but  the 
little  forefinger,  as  it  were,  pointing  out  to  the  greater  West  of  a  greater 
future  than  has  yet  been  dreamed,  when  there  shall  be  opened  up  to  emi 
gration  and  production  the  great  plains  of  America  which  lie  between 
the  meridian  line  which  terminates  the  States  of  Louisiana,  Arkansas, 
Missouri,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota,  on  the  west,  and  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
out  of  which  twenty-four  new  States  will  arise  with  th  e  same  abundance 
of  resources  which  marks  the  States  of  the  Mississippi  valley  ! 

It  is  a  common  practice,  in  discussions  of  this  character,  to  show  the 
expenses  of  our  Government  when  we  were  young,  and,  by  contrast  with 
the  present,  to  decry  the  present  lack  of  economy.  One  of  my  colleagues 
[Mr.  SHERMAN],  in  an  able  speech  this  session,  after  giving  table  after 
table  of  figures  showing  our  expenses  in  the  past,  and  comparing  them 
with  the  present,  did  not  give  sufficient  heed,  in  my  humble  judgment, 
to  the  great  increase  in  all  the  departments  of  industry,  and  in  all  the  re 
sources  of  our  fast-growing  commonwealths.  Here  is  a  sample  of  this  sort 
of  fallacy  taken  from  his  speech  : 

"  The  expenses  of  this  year,  the  first  under  Mr.  Buchanan's  adminis 
tration,  will  be  $5,000,000  more  than  the  entire  expenses  of  the  Govern 
ment  from  its  foundation  to  the  close  of  Jefferson's  administration.  The 
•.rate  expenses  for  the  first  twenty  years  of  our  Government  were 
$78,363,762  ;  and  I  have  already  shown  that,  this  year,  the  expenses  ex 
ceed  $83,000,000." 


FINANCES,   TARIFFS,   ETC.  33 

Such  statements  prejudice  without  convincing.  There  is  no  compari 
son  to  be  drawn  between  such  a  remote  era  as  the  first  twenty  years  of 
our  Government  and  the  present  time.  Since  then  we  have  had  steam 
ships,  steamboats,  steam  sea  vessels  of  war,  steam  sea  mail  service.  We 
have  added  since  then  to  our  area  five-fold.  We  have  more  than  doubled  the 
States,  and  we  have  now  six  Territories.  Within  a  half  century  what 
have  we  done  ?  Moved  the  Indians  west  and  further  west  of  the  Missis 
sippi.  We  have  given  them  missionaries  and  whiskey,  money  and  schools  ; 
and  our  Interior  Department  are  trying  to  civilize  all  the  War  Depart 
ment  do  not  murder.  We  have  made  our  land  the  principal  cotton  and 
great  grain-growing  country  of  the  world.  Our  marine  now  exceeds  that 
of  England  in  tonnage.  Our  manufactures  now  compete  with  Europe  in 
South  America  and  the  Orient.  We  have  increased  our  numbers  nearly 
six-fold,  for  in  1808  our  population  was  about  six  millions  ;  we  have  in 
creased  our  federal  expenses  about  twelve-fold,  but  our  annual  private  in 
come  fifteen-fold ! 

There  is  no  fairness  in  tables  like  those  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  SHER 
MAN],  which  institute  comparisons  between  different  years,  and  which 
take  the  increase  of  population  only  as  the  test  of  a  true  ratio  of  increase 
in  expenses.  Conclusions  from  such  premises  may  well  be  called  "  mon 
sters  of  imagination  begotten  on  a  cloud  of  statistics."  Why,  it  would  be 
hardly  fair  to  compare  the  expenses  often  or  five  years  ago  with  those  of 
the  present.  Last  year  our  expenses  were  over  sixty-five  millions.  In 
1850  they  were  only  $37,000,000.  "  What  prodigality  !  "  says  the  sophist. 
He  ought  not  to  say  it,  till  he  remembers  what  empires  we  have  opened 
since  1850,  what  new  and  great  calls  are  made  on  our  Treasury  for  the 
proper  protection  of  added  interests.  In  1830  we  had  an  expenditure  of 
over  thirteen  millions.  "  Now,"  says  the  sophist,  "  it  is  nearly  six  times 
as  much."  Think  of  one  fact  in  this  connection,  and  you  will  not  hastily 
conclude  on  such  premises.  In  1830  a  writer  in  Philadelphia  glories  over 
the  wonderful  fact  that  whereas,  in  1824,  only  about  three  thousand  dollars 
in  gold  from  domestic  sources  was  sent  to  the  Mint,  then,  in  1830,  it  had 
increased  to  $130,000.  But,  let  me  add,  what  a  change  since  1830 ! 
Now,  our  domestic  yield  of  gold  exceeds  fifty  millions  per  annum  !  There 
is  but  one  criterion  for  the  increase  of  our  expenses.  It  is  not  the  increase 
of  our  population  ;  such  a  ratio  is  an  unfair  test  of  true  economy  :  but  it 
is  the  increase  of  all  the  interests  in  view  of  our  increased  national 
wealth,  area,  and  importance.  Whenever  these  interests  and  the  honor 
of  the  nation  do  not  demand  it,  our  expenses  must  be  kept  down  with 
rigid  firmness. 

The  expectations  of  the  Government  from  the  last  tariff  have  been 
foiled  by  the  financial  troubles.  The  expenses  of  the  Government  for  this 
year  have  been  somewhat  increased  by  the  Utah  troubles,  as  well  as  by 
the  naturally  growing  demands  of  our  growing  nation.  It  becomes  us  to 
meet  these  expenses  in  a  patriotic  spirit ;  to  furnish  means  to  preserve  un 
tarnished  pur  national  honor.  Compared  to  the  Governments  of  the  Old 
World,  loaded  as  they  are  with  debts,  our  condition,  at  the  worst,  is  hap 
py.  A  hundred  millions  is  no  debt  to  a  nation  like  ours,  with  its  resources 
and  its  energies.  We  throw  off  such  debts  as  lightly  as  a  summer  gar 
ment. 

3 


34  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  encourage  a  system  of  national  debt.  If  we  need 
money  just  now  in  our  exchequer,  let  us  borrow  it ;  trusting,  as  we  may 
do  with  reason,  to  the  revival  of  business  already  begun,  which  will  in 
sure  before  long  a  revenue  sufficient  for  expenses.  Far  better  borrow 
than  fill  a  treasury  to  overflowing  by  a  high  tariff.  Let  the  present  tariff 
be  fully  tested  ;  and  if  it  fail,  in  a  fair  season,  to  give  us  a  sufficient  rev 
enue,  then  let  it  be  modified  to  suit  the  exigency.  The  reverses  of  1837 
were  terrible.  The  country  staggered  under  them  for  years.  The 
reverses  of  1857  are  comparatively  easy  to  be  borne.  We  have  now  a 
better  banking  system,  a  more  healthful  curtailment  of  private  expenditure, 
and  a  better  system  of  public  finance — the  sub-treasury.  We  had  not 
these  twenty  years  ago.  Already  the  disease  of  last  year  is  wearing  out. 
It  is  found  not  to  be  chronic.  Individuals  have  economized  manfully. 
Our  decreased  imports — which  are  the  very  cause  of  our  loan  bills  and 
lank  treasury — show  a  recovery  going  on  at  once  healthful  and  invigor 
ating.  So  that  our  seeming  disaster  of  an  empty  treasury  is  the  index  of 
a  restorative  process  which  will  bring  prosperity. 

I  hope  that  the  economy  which  the  people  are  now  practising  in  their 
own  troubles,  may  be  practised  by  our  Government  in  its  embarrass 
ments.  We  need  to  be  reminded  by  misfortune  of  the  evils  of  extrava 
gance.  This  is  an  age  of  luxury.  Could  the  people  who  have  sent  us 
here  glance  at  this  Hall,  ornamented  with  all  the  bedizenment  of  gilt  and 
paint ;  could  they  hear  but  one  discussion  on  the  monster  schemes  and 
inordinate  extravagance  of  the  last  Congress  ;  and  believe  half  their  eye 
saw  or  ear  heard,  there  would  be  more  excitement  on  economical  than  terri 
torial  affairs.  Their  surprise  would  but  indicate  a  fact,  that  our  Govern 
ment  and  its  rulers  are  far  in  advance  of  the  people  in  the  vices,  and  far 
behind  them  in  the  virtues,  of  republican  life.  That  simplicity  which  ob 
tains  among  the  masses  in  New  England,  in  New  York,  in  the  West  and 
South,  has  but  little  reflection  either  in  the  social  life  or  political  legisla 
tion  of  the  metropolis. 

In  saying  this  much,  I  am  not  indifferent  to  the  proud  fact  that  our 
governments,  Federal  and  State,  are  yet  the  models,  in  an  economical 
view,  to  which  the  reformers  of  England  and  the  continents  point,  for  the 
guidance  of  their  own  governments.  No  man  can  read  without  patriotic 
emotion  the  plaudits  of  De  Tocqueville,  as  he  discourses  of  the  simplicity 
and  economy  of  our  system.  Again  and  again  have  Cobden,  Hume,  and 
Roebuck,  from  the  English  hustings  and  in  Parliament,  referred  to  these 
United  States  for  lessons  in  an  economy  which  is  liberal  without  being 
extravagant,  and  which  has  striven  to  be  discriminating  without  being 
mean.  It  was  only  a  few  weeks  ago  that  Mr.  Bright  bemoaned,  in  a  let 
ter  to  Birmingham,  the  suffering  consequent  upon  the  increasing  taxes  of 
England.  He  could  find  no  remedy  except  in  the  diminution  of  their 
augmenting  expenditure.  He  startled  the  English  people  by  showing  that 
their  Government  was  now  spending  £20,000,000  sterling  more  than  they 
were  spending  a  few  years  back,  and  that  since  1835,  when  Wellington 
and  Peel  had  charge  of  the  Government,  their  military  expenses  alone 
had  doubled ;  and  then,  pointing  to  this  nation,  he  said  : 

u  This  year,  we  shall  raise  at  least  £50,000,000  sterling  more  than 
will  be  required  to  be  raised  by  an  equal  population  living  not  in  England, 
but  the  United  States  of  America  !  " 


35 

Two  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars  is  the  burden  which  twenty-seven 
million  people  pay  in  Great  Britain  over  and  above  what  the  same  num 
ber  would  pay  in  America,  under  our  Government.  Can  we  wonder, 
then,  that  where  the  burdens  are  so  heavy,  and  the  political  privileges  so 
few,  so  many  are  now  considering  the  propriety  and  advantage  of  emi 
gration  ;  and  that  at  this  moment  the  unemployed  of  the  manufacturing 
districts  of  England  are  appealing  to  the  Queen  for  an  extensive  system 
of  free  emigration? 

If  such  be  the  attractive  force  of  our  economy,  how  carefully  should 
we  guard  it!  We  should  not  be  content  with  the  flattering  contrasts 
we  can  draw  with  the  Old  World !  If  we  find  in  our  expenditure  a  dan 
gerous  augmentation,  let  us  apply  the  canons  of  our  party  platforms  to 
practical  legislation,  and  lop  off  the  excrescences  where  we  can.  At 
least,  let  us  protest  where  we  cannot  lop  off,  and  so  guard  our  future 
against  deficiency  bills,  and  loan  bills,  as  to  secure  the  greatest  economy 
with  the  least  government  possible,  consistent  with  security. 


TARIFF  IN  1864. 


THE  CONSUMERS,  THE  SERFS  OF  CAPITAL. — NEW  RELATIONS  OF  PAPER  MONEY  TO  THE   TARIFF. — 

PROTECTED   AND   UNPROTECTED   STATES   AND   CLASSES. ROBBERY  OF  CONSUMERS. RAPACITY 

OF   MONOPOLY. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentleman  [Mr.  MORRILL]  who  report 
ed  this  bill,  has  just  assured  us  that  it  is  only  a  war  measure  of  temporary 
duration.  Feeling  the  necessity  of  apologizing  for  the  bill,  which  is  an 
aggravation  of  the  tariff  of  1862,  the  gentleman  terms  it  a  war  measure. 
If  it  were  not  that  we  are  already  immersed  in  a  war  whose  excitements 
are  so  absorbing  that  no  time  is  left  for  reflection  upon  other  subjects  of 
policy,  this  tariff  might  well  be  called  a  war  measure.  Its  oppressive 
character  is  enormous  enough  to  produce  revolution. 

On  the  25th  of  February,  1861,  I  came  to  this  House  from  a  sick  bed 
to  protest  against  the  tariff  bill  then  pending.  I  denounced  it  as  a  great 
fiscal  tyranny,  a  mountainous  burden  on  the  West.  While  favoring  a 
revenue  tariff  to  meet  our  then  small  expenditures,  I  opposed  bounties, 
special  advantages,  and  class  legislation.  I  showed  that  the  bill  as  then 
designed  raised  bounties  from  the  consumers  of  the  West  and  South,  to 
be  paid  to  the  iron-masters  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  manufacturers  of 
New  England.  That  bill  was  urged  as  a  measure  of  protection,  protec 
tion  to  western  interests.  I  then  said  "  that  the  West  could  take  care  of 
itself.  It  is  rich  by  nature  in  its  resources  ;  and  if  the  people  of  Penn 
sylvania  cannot  live  by  working  their  forges,  with  their  own  natural  re 
sources  ;  and  if  the  people  of  New  England  cannot  live  by  working  their 
spindles,  with  their  natural  ingenuity,  without  the  aid  of  other  classes  of 
industry  and  the  bounty  of  the  Government,  let  them  move  to  the  West, 
and  there  the  God  of  nature  will  protect  them  in  the  cultivation  of  the 
soil,  if  they  have  the  industry  to  work  and  the  frugality  to  save." 


36  EIFHT   TEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Since  then,  sir,  that  tariff  so  burdensome  has  been  enormously  in 
creased.  Our  debt,  then  so  small,  being  only  867,281,591,  with  an  in 
terest  of  only  about  four  millions,  was,  on  the  15th  day  of  March,  1864, 
$1,580,201,744.  On  that  day  we  had  a  paper  currency,  including  cer 
tificates  of  indebtedness,  amounting  to  $779,683,922.  Since  then  these 
sums  have  been  increased.  Figures  fail  to  express  the  magnitude  of  our 
burdens  and  liabilities.  Nor  do  I  intend  to  complain  of  them  now.  The 
war  has  brought  them.  Neither  will  I  discuss  now  who  are  responsible 
for  either  the  war  or  its  incidents.  I  accept  the  existing  facts.  Having 
voted  against  the  high  tariffs,  the  paper  system,  and  the  whole  scheme  of 
finance  in  all  its  stages,  I  am  not  in  anywise  responsible  for  their  exist 
ence.  We  are  spending  $3,000,000  a  day  ;  $1,000,000,000  a  year.  Ir 
respective  of  loans,  we  are  striving  to  meet  this  enormous  outlay  by  the 
tax  bill,  which  is  to  raise  $200,000,000  per  year,  and  the  tariff,  which 
will  meet  perhaps  $50,000,000  more. 

I  do  not  oppose  the  raising  of  these  sums.  The  credit  of  the  Gov 
ernment  demands  it.  I  accept  events,  but  I  do  not  apcept  every  plan  to 
raise  these  sums,  nor  any  plan  because  proposed  by  the  dominant  party 
or  its  committees  in  this  House.  We  have  no  business  here  as  Repre 
sentatives  if  we  do  not  question  every  plan,  especially  if  it  aifects  unfairly 
our  own  State  or  constituents.  I  am  not  a  Representative,  but  a  slave, 
if  I  yield  to  the  clamor  of  one  section  or  class  for  benefits  which  affect 
unjustly  another  section  or  class.  I  do  not  represent  the  rich,  they  can 
take  care  of  themselves  ;  nor  the  poor  altogether ;  but  a  principle  which 
requires  that  taxation  shall  fall  equally  on  all :  that  the  benefits  of  legis 
lation  shall  not  inure  to  one  class,  and  its  burdens  be  laid  upon  another. 
I 'propose  to  prove  that  this  is  the  effect  of  the  existing  and  proposed 
legislation. 

By  the  joint  resolution  passed  a  few  weeks  ago,  we  increased  the  tariff 
rates  of  1862  fifty  per  cent.  The  present  bill,  while  repealing  that  reso 
lution  after  the  1st  of  July,  does  not  lessen  but  increases  largely  the  same 
rates.  It  adds  to  them,  on  most  articles,  the  amount  of  the  internal  tax. 
The  duties  are  paid  in  gold.  This  adds  the  premium  of  gold  to  the  tariff 
rates.  So  that  in  considering  the  effect  of  these  measures  I  must  con 
sider  them  as  affected  by  the  paper  money  which  has  been  showered  upon 
the  country  with  such  prodigality. 

What,  then,  are  the  benefits  accruing  to  the  manufacturing  classes, 
and  the  burdens  imposed  upon  the  agricultural  and  consuming  classes,  by 
the  present  tariff  system  and  a  depreciated  paper  currency?  What,  par 
ticularly,  are  their  operations  upon  the  industrial  interests  of  New  Eng 
land  and  the  western  States  as  contrasted? 

Before  resorting  to  an  arithmetical  demonstration  to  show  the  effects 
of  the  tariff  and  "greenback"  systems  combined,  I  propose  a  few  self- 
evident  propositions  as  the  basis  of  my  calculations  : 

1.  In  the  commercial  transactions  between  two  foreign  countries,  in 
fact  all  countries,  the  basis  of  exchange  must  be  specie,  and  the  currency 
of  the  countries  must  be  reduced  to  their  par  values. 

At  present  the  gold  currency  of  the  United  States  contains  more  alloy 
that  that  of  Great  Britain,  the  difference  in  their  values  being  that  of  nine 
cents  on  a  dollar  ;  eight  and  three  quarters  according  to  Tate's  Cambist. 


3T 

This  rate  varies  in  actual  commercial  transactions  according  to  the  de 
mand  and  supply  of  exchange.  Therefore,  in  order  to  equalize  the  gold 
currencies  of  the  two  countries,  it  is  necesssry  to  add  eight  and  three 
quarters  per  cent,  to  eacli  American  dollar.  This  will  make  it  equal 
in  value  to  a  dollar  of  the  same  weight  in  the  gold  currency  of  England. 
In  other  words,  the  merchant  in  New  York  who  would  pay  $1  to  the 
merchant  in  Liverpool,  must  send  him  $1.08J  of  our  gold.  The  exchange 
on  England  generally  ranges  above  this  rate.  It  depends  upon  demand 
and  supply,  and  the  freight  and  risk  of  transporting  specie. 

2.  If  the  currency  of  one  country  is  a  depreciated  paper  currency,  and 
of  the  other  specie,  the  rate  of  exchange  is  according  to  the  depreciation  of 
(he  paper  currency  of  one  country  below  the  gold  or  standard  specie  cur 
rency  of  the  other.  For  example,  the  United  States  paper  currency,  as 
compared  with  United  States  gold,  the  latter  being,  to  say  the  least,  at  a 
premium  of  sixty  per  cent.,  taking  the  average  of  the  past  year,  is 
depreciated  thirty-seven  and  a  half  per  cent.  That  is,  it  takes  $1.60  of 
United  States  paper  to  buy  $1  of  United  States  gold;  that  is  to  say,  $1 
in  United  States  paper  is  worth  only  sixty-two  and  a  half  cents  in  United 
States  gold. 

Now,  in  order  to  pay  $1  in  Liverpool  in  United  States  paper  at  the 
above  depreciation,  namely,  in  the  ratio  of  $1.60  for  $1,  it  would  require 
$1.74.  To  the  demonstration : 

$1  08 £  of  American  gold  is  equal  to  $1  of  English  gold. 

60    rate  of  depreciation  of  American  paper  as  compared  with  American  gold. 


65  25 

108  75 

$174  OQ 

Therefore  the  rate  of  exchange  between  the  paper  currency  of  the 
United  States  and  the  gold  currency  of  England  is  seventy-four  per  cent. 
In  other  words,  it  takes  $174  of  United  States  depreciated  paper  in  New 
York  to  pay  $100  in  Liverpool. 

And  this  result  corresponds  with  the  actual  market  prices  of  gold  and 
exchange.  I  see  in  the  stock  market  of  Boston,  as  reported  in  the  Bos 
ton  Courier  on  February  29,  1864,  that  gold  was  quoted  at  $1.58£  to  $1.59, 
and  exchange  on  England,  sixty  days  to  run,  at  73  and  74. 

Mr.  PRUYN.     Exchange  is  more  than  that  now.     It  is  a  dollar. 

Mr.  Cox.  Of  course,  if  gold  is  at  ninety,  as  it  is  now,  the  price  of  ex 
change  rises  in  the  ratio  of  its  increase.  Therefore,  in  order  to  buy  $100 
worth  of  gold  in  England  the  American!  merchant  must  pay  $174  in  the 
depreciated  paper  currency  of  the  United  States  when  gold  is  quoted  only 
at  $1.60. 

When  he  brings  that  $100  worth  of  goods  to  this  country,  in  order  to 
reimburse  himself  he  must  sell  it  for  $174  of  our  currency  with  freight 
and  duty  superadded. 

The  Government  requires  that  these  duties  shall  be  paid  in  gold. 
The  importing  merchant,  therefore,  must  purchase  the  gold  with  depre 
ciated  paper,  paying  for  it  the  market  premium. 


38  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

For  instance,  if  the  duty  on  the  merchandise  is  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
or  $40  on  each  $100  of  value  imported,  he  must  add  60  per  cent,  to  the 
$40,  which  is  equal  to  $24.  That  sum  added  to  the  $40  is  equal  to  $64. 
Thus,  in  order  to  pay  a  specie  duty  of  40  per  cent,  on  $100  of  merchandise, 
the  merchant  must  pay  in  paper,  depreciated  in  the  ratio  of  $160  to  $100, 
a  duty  of  $64  or  64  per  cent.  To  which  is  to  be  added  the  increased  duty 
of  50  per  cent,  on  the  former  rates,  under  the  recent  joint  resolution, 
which  would  add  $20  more  to  the  cost*;  but  as  that,  too,  has  to  be  paid  in 
gold  and  the  gold  purchased,  there  would  be  $12  more  to  be  added, 
making  $32. 

Now,  let  me  demonstrate  what  it  will  cost  in  United  States  paper, 
depreciated  only  in  the  ratio  of  $160  to  $100,  to  import  merchandise 
costing  $100  in  England  : 

First  cost $100 

Difference  of  exchange 74 

Duty  of  40  per  cent,  exchanged  to  paper 64 

Fifty  per  cent,  additional  duty  recently  put  on,  exchanged  to  paper 32 

Actual  cost,  exclusive  of  freight  and  other  charges 270 

Deduct  first  cost 100 

Leaving  additional  cost  in  consequence  of  exchange,  duties,  and  paper  money. . . .     $170 

Thus  the  consumers,  in  consequence  of  the  depreciation  of  paper  money 
and  the  duties  payable  in  gold,  have  to  pay  $270,  or  170  per  cent,  in 
addition  to  the  cost,  for  every  $100  worth  of  goods  imported  from  England 
into  this  country.  To  this  is  to  be  added  the  freight  and  charges,  and  at 
least  10  per  cent,  profits  to  the  importer. 

4.  The  elements  of  cost,  therefore,  upon  merchandise  imported  from 
foreign  countries  into  the  United  States,  are  :   1,  the  first  cost  abroad ;  2, 
difference  of  exchange  ;  3,  duty  ;  4,  freight,  insurance,  and  other  charges 
of  importation  ;  and,  5,  the  importer's  profits  on  all  the  preceding  items, 
which  we  reckon  at  10  per  cent. 

5.  At  this  point  of  cost  the  imported  article  comes  in  competition  with 
the  corresponding  article  of  the  home  manufacturer  in  the  American  mar 
ket.     And  the  aggregate  of  the  items  above  mentioned  constitutes  the  pro 
tection  or  bounty  which  the  tariff  system  gives  to  the  manufacturer.    The 
consumers  of  the  domestic  article,  of  course,  pay  this  bounty  to  the  manu 
facturer.     This  is  now  reduced  to  an  axiom  in  political  economy.     It  is 
as  clear  as  the  proposition  that  the  object  of  a  tariff  for  protection  is  to 
increase  the  price  of  the  article.     If  this  were  not  the  case,  who  would  care 
for  protective  bounties?     Not  the  manufacturer,  certainly.     If  not  he, 
who  then? 

6.  Thus  the  system  taxes  the  labor  and  capital  employed  in  one  class 
of  industrial  interests  for  the  benefit  of  the  labor  and  capital  employed  in 
another  class  of  industrial  interests. 

In  order  to  demonstrate  by  facts  and  figures  the  truth  of  the  foregoing 
propositions,  I  propose  to  take  three  descriptions  of  iron,  namely :  pig, 
railroad,  and  bar,  showing  the  quantities  imported,  the  cost  in  England, 
and  the  cost  in  this  country  in  depreciated  paper,  with  duties,  freight,  and 
importer's  profits  superadded.  I  omit  insurance  and  other  minor  charges 


FINANCES,   TAKIFFS,   ETC.  39 

of  importation.  I  take  the  importations  of  1861  as  the  basis  of  my  cal 
culations,  because  I  have  not  at  hand  the  importations  of  later  years. 
The  principles  upon  which  the  demonstrations  are  made  apply  to  the  im 
portation  ot  all  years.  My  calculations  are  also  based  upon  gold  at  the 
rate  of  8 ICO  in  the  depreciated  paper  currency  of  the  United  States. 
The  rates  of  duty  are  those  of  the  tariff  of  1862,  without  adding  thereto 
the  50  per  cent,  on  those  rates  of  the  recent  law,  and  without  adding  the 
increase  proposed  by  the  present  bill.  I  take  these  different  kinds  of  iron 
because  the  specific  duty  required  to  be  paid  upon  each  of  them  can  easily 
be  reduced  to  the  ad  valorem  standard.  Also,  for  the  purpose  of  econo 
mizing  in  figures,  I  will  call  the  rate  of  exchange  between  England  and 
this  country  70  per  cent,  instead  of  74,  which  will  be  more  favorable  to 
the  manufacturer. 

Pig  Iron. — Quantity  imported  in  1861,  39,538^  tons ;  cost  $14  per 
ton ;  duty  $6  per  ton,  or  43  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  equal  to  68  oer  cent,  in 
paper  money. 

Cost  in  England $542,952 

Difference  of  exchange  at  70  per  cent 380,066 

Duty  43  per  cent,  in  gold,  68  per  cent,  in  paper 369,207 

Freight  at  $6  per  ton 236,231 

Importer's  profit  10  per  cent,  on  first  cost,  exchange,  duty,  and 

freight 156,845 

81,685,301 


Thus,  when  this  quantity  of  iron,  with  its  original  cost,  difference  of 
exchange,  freight,  and  duties  paid,  is  offered  in  the  market  of  the  United 
States,  it  costs  $1,685,301.  At  that  point  it  comes  in  competition  with 
the  product  of  the  home  manufacturer ;  consequently  his  protection,  or 
bounty,  is  the  difference  betwreen  the  first  cost  and  the  cost  when  the  for 
eign  iron  enters  into  competition  with  him  in  the  home  market. 

Let  us  see  what  that  protection  or  bounty  is  : 

From  cost  in  our  market $1,685,301 

Deduct  first  cost  in  England 542,952 


Leaving  a  bounty  on  same  quantity  to  the  home  manufacturer  of. .  $1,142,349 

or  210  per  cent. 

Same  calculation  on  a  specie  basis : 

Cost  of  pig  iron  imported  in  1861 $542,952 

Difference  of  exchange  at  9  per  cent 48,865 

Duty  at  43  per  cent 233,409 

Freight  at  $6  per  ton 236,231 

Importer's  profits  at  10  per  cent 106,151 


$1,167,608 

At  this  point  of  cost,  it  comes  in  competition  in  our  market  with  the 
article  produced  by  the  home  manufacturer. 


40  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN  CONGRESS. 

From  its  cost  in  our  market $1,167,608 

Deduct  original  cost  abroad 642,952 


$624,656 
or  115  per  cent. 

[Mr.  Cox  pursued  a  similar  system  of  demonstration  with  respect  to 
railroad  and  bar  iron,  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures,  &c.,  a  compendi 
ous  statement  of  which  is  placed  in  tabular  form  hereafter.] 

In  these  calculations  I  have  embraced  only  three  descriptions  of  iron. 
The  importation  of  iron  in  all  forms  amounts  to  millions  in  value  more, 
which  comes  in  competition  with  the  home  manufacture  of  similar  descrip 
tions  of  articles.  Thus  my  calculation  fails  to  give  all  the  enormous  prof 
its  realized  by  the  home  manufacturer  on  the  article  of  iron. 

In  order  to  pay  those  exorbitant  profits  to  the  iron  manufacturers, 
labor  and  capital  employed  in  other  pursuits  of  industry  must  necessarily 
be  taxed  in  corresponding  proportion. 

"  But  we  must  have  revenues.  The  war  must  not  suffer  for  the  want 
of  money,"  says  some  one  with  more  zeal  than  reflection.  Now,  will  some 
adept  in  figures  please  inform  me  what  proportion  of  this  immense  sum  of 
$48,094,548  realized  by  the -home  manufacturer  on  iron  goes  into  the 
Treasury  to  support  the  war  and  pay  the  expenses  of  the  Government  ? 
The  whole  revenue  of  the  tariff  on  all  articles  is  not  much  greater.  The 
truth  is,  the  revenue  is  not  only  lessened,  the  Treasury  defrauded,  and  the 
people  deluded  by  this  clamor  for  bounties,  but,  by  oppressive  and  unjust 
discrimination,  one  class  waxes  fat  and  rich  out  of  the  labor  and  means  of 
another. 

If,  then,  this  amount  does  not  go  for  revenue,  but  is  for  the  most  part  a 
bounty  paid  to  the  manufacturer  by  every  consumer  of  iron  in  all  its  man 
ifold  shapes  and  uses,  how  can  an  increase  of  the  duties  on  iron  as  pro 
posed  by  the  bill  now  before  the  House,  be  justified?  On  pig  iron  alone 
the  duty  is  increased  by  this  bill  from  six  to  nine  dollars  per  ton  ;  on  rail 
road  iron  nearly  in  the  same  ratio,  and  on  bar  iron  much  more  ;  and  still 
the  iron  masters  clamor  for  more.  Does  their  clamor  proceed  on  the 
principle  laid  down  by  Dr.  Wayland — Political  Economy,  page  147 — that 
"  when  once  a  duty  is  imposed  for  the  protection  of  a  particular  branch  of 
manufactures,  it  is  not  long  before  home  competition  begins,  ruin  threatens, 
and  a  larger  protective  duty  is  demanded  "  ?  Or  is  it  because  these  iron 
cormorants,  having  tasted  the  sweets  of  inordinate  gain,  place  no  limit 
upon  their  insane  greed?  If  I  should  fix  the  price  of  gold  at  190  instead 
of  1GO  ;  if  I  should  add  the  recent  50  per  cent,  increase  of  the  tariff  to  this 
protective  bounty,  or  the  increase  proposed  by  the  present  bill ;  I  would 
be  justified  in  fixing  the  average  tax  which  the  consumer  pays  to  the 
manufacturer  at  over  200  per  cent,  on  all  kinds  of  iron  !  Nor  would  our 
people  then  wonder,  that  whereas  they  once  bought  all  articles  into  which 
iron  enters  at  small  prices,  these  articles  are  now  enormously  enhanced  in 
price.  Of  course  such  articles  as  are  increased  in  price  by  the  increased 
value  of  the  labor  put  on  them,  and  into  which  little  iron  and  more  labor 
enters  as  an  element  of  cost,  are  double  their  old  prices.  A  hatchet  which, 
before  the  tariff  of  1862  and  the  paper  money  system,  cost  twenty-five 


FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC.  41 

cents,  now  costs  double.  So  with  ploughs.  A  hoe  that  formerly  cost  but 
thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents,  now  costs  over  a  dollar.  Articles  into  which 
less  labor  and  more  iron  enters  are  greater  still  in  the  ratio  of  increase. 
A  keg  of  nails  which  in  1860  cost  but  $2.10,  now  brings  ov^er  $7  !  Every 
article  of  iron,  from  a  bodkin  to  a  boiler,  from  an  anvil  to  an  engine,  from 
a  buckle  to  a  buggy  spring,  from  a  hammer  to  a  harrow-tooth,  from  a 
wood  screw  to  a  woman's  hoop,  from  a  steel  shirt  collar  to  an  iron  steam 
ship,  all  pay  their  tribute  to  the  iron-makers  of  the  United  States,  and 
particularly  of  Pennsylvania,  who,  as  the  annexed  table  will  show,  man 
ufacture  nearly  three-fourths  of  the  iron  of  the  United  States  : 

Pig.        Bar  and  other 
rolled. 

New  Hampshire  and  Vermont 3,224  1,170 

Massachusetts 13,700  20,285 

Maine 5,300 

Connecticut 11,000  2,060 

New  York 63,145  38,275 

New  Jersey 29,048  25,006 

Pennsylvania 553,560  259,209 

Maryland 30,500  7,000 

Ohio 94,647  10,439 

Indiana 375  2,000 

Michigan 10,400  .... 

Wisconsin 2,000  .... 

Illinois 22,000  4,678 

Kentucky 23,362  6,200 

Virginia 9,096  17,870 

Tennessee 18,417  5,024 

North  Carolina, 1}007 

South  Carolina 275 


884,474        405,798 


The  duties  imposed  upon  cotton  manufactures  by  the  tariff  of  1862, 
are  so  involved  and  intricate  that  it  is  impossible  to  reduce  them  precisely 
to  the  ad  valorem  standard  without  the  aid  of  the  amount  of  duties  actually 
received  upon  the  amount  of  goods  imported.  That  amount  can  be  ascer 
tained  only  from  the  Treasury  Department  of  the  United  States. 

The  duties7  on  cotton  goods  seem  to  have  been  expressly  devised  to 
deceive  and  mislead  the  consumer,  while  giving  a  most  exorbitant  bounty 
to  the  home  manufacturer. 

For  instance,  on  certain  classes  of  goods,  specific  duties,  varying  from 
one  and  three-quarters  cents,  according  to  the  number  of  threads  in  the 
square  inch,  per  yard,  are  imposed  ;  and  on  other  classes,  namely,  colored 
prints,  specific  duties,  varying  from  two  and  three-quarters  to  five  and 
one-half  cents,  and  an  additional  duty  of  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem  per  yard 
are  imposed. 

This  complicated  system  of  levying  duties  defies  the  intelligence  of  any 
man  to  unravel  who  is  not  engaged  in  the  trade,  or  has  not  access  to  the 
custom-house  returns  at  Washington.  The  present  bill  does  not  simplify 
but  complicates  still  more  this  pernicious  system  of  duties. 

Its  obvious  purpose  is  to  deceive  the  consumer,  and  to  give  an  unreason 
able  protection  or  bounty  to  the  home  manufacturer ;  to  tax  and  impoverish 


42  EIGHT  TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

the  consumers,  and  to  build  up  an  aristocracy  of  manufacturers,  residing 
mostly  in  Massachusetts  and  the  other  New  England  States. 

But  one  fact  it  cannot  hide  from  plain  people  :  that  whereas  three 
years  ago  our  farmers'  wives  bought  a  yard  of  calico  for  ten  or  twelve 
cents,  the  same  costs  now  froxa  twenty-five  to  twenty-eight  cents. 

Mr.  MALLORY.     More  than  that.     Forty  cents  at  least. 

Mr.  Cox.  Well,  this  I  know,  that  whereas  a  yard  of  muslin,  three 
years  ago,  cost  ten  cents,  it  now  costs  forty-five  cents.  What  could  be 
once  bought  with  two  and  one-third  days'  labor,  now  requires  nearly  four. 
Coffee,  sugar,  tea,  and  all  the  necessaries  of  life  have  not  only  been 
enhanced  in  their  nominal  price  by  the  paper  money  standard,  but  really 
enhanced  by  the  tariff  also.  But  these  taxes  are  patent  to  all.  It  being 
impossible  to  ascertain  the  precise  duty  imposed  on  cotton  goods  reduced 
to  the  ad  valorem  standard,  it  therefore  can  only  be  approximated.  It 
probably  ranges  from  40  to  60  per  cent.  But  to  make  a  calculation  on  a 
basis  most  favorable  to  the  manufacturer,  I  assume  that  the  duties  on 
cotton  goods  when  reduced  to  the  ad  valorem  standard  would  be  35  per 
cent.,  the  ordinary  ad  valorem  duty,  when  that  form  of  duty  is  used,  under 
the  taritf  of  1862  and  the  bill  before  the  House.  Upon  this  basis  the  calcu 
lations  are  made. 

In  the  preparation  of  these  calculations  I  have  taken  unusual  pains. 
I  have  been  aided  by  a  distinguished  statist,  Edmund  Burke,  of  New 
Hampshire,  to  whom  the  country  is  indebted  for  many  valuable  lessons 
in  economy.  But  if  any  one  questions  the  accuracy  of  the  data  upon 
which  they  are  based,  I  present  some  actual  transactions  which  confirm 
my  conclusions.  Below  is  the  copy  of  a  document  showing  the  actual 
duties  and  charges  paid  at  the  Boston  custom-house  on  a  package  of 
woollen  goods  and  silk  India-rubber  fabrics  imported  from  England  and 
entered  April  5,  1864.  It  is  the  account  rendered  to  the  importers  by 
the  brokers  who  transacted  the  business  at  the  custom-house.  The  pack 
age  was  marked  B  77,  and  contained  goods  invoiced  in  Liverpool  at  £129 
2s.  lOd.  In  reducing  the  sterling  currency  to  Federal  money,  the  invoice, 
for  the  sake  of  convenience,  is  called  £130. 

BOSTON,  April  5,  1864. 
MESSRS.  BARKY  &  BRO. 

To  STONE  &  DOWNER,  Dr. 
Charges  at  Liverpool  as  per  margin. 

To  duty  on  one  package,  per  Africa $264  10 

Permit $  10 

Bond - 30 

Custom-house  charges. 62 

Cartage 76 

Wharfage 32 

Revenue  stamp 1  15 

Commission 1  62 

4  86 

$258  96 

Premium  on  $260  80  at  80  per  cent $170  65 

"         "        330at80       "       264 

173  19 

$432  16 


FINANCES,   TARIFFS,   ETC.  43 

Actual  cost  of  importing  the  package  above  referred  to,  as  estimated  by  the  importer: — 

Duty  on  B  77 $254  10 

Freight  from  Liverpool 22  50 

Marine  Insurance 17  55 

$294  15 
Premium  on  gold  and  custom-house  charges 178  05 

$492  20 


Amount  of  invoice  in  round  numbers £130  00 

Duty  and  charges  on  specie  basis  in  sterling,  at  $5  to  the  pound 90  00 

£220  00 
84 

Reduced  to  Federal  money  at  the  rate  of  $8  50  ft  the  pound 1,760  00 

110  00 

$1,870  00 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  pound  sterling  is  estimated  at  $5  in  American 
gold,  which  id  higher  than  the  actual  rate  of  exchange,  that  being  about 
$4.83  to  the  pound ;  and  therefore  it  is  most  favorable  to  the  manufac 
turer. 

Thus  the  package  of  goods  which  cost  £130,  or  $650  in  gold  (calling 
the  pound  sterling  $5),  in  England,  actually  cost  $1,870  in  the  paper  cur 
rency  of  the  United  States,  to  import  into  this  country,  reckoning  the  dif 
ference  of  exchange  at  80  per  cent,  premium,  as  it  was  at  the  date  of  the 
transaction.  Add  to  the  cost  in  this  country,  at  $1,870,  the  profits  of  the 
importer  at  10  per  cent.,  or  $187,  and  the  cost  to  the  purchaser  in  our 
market  is  $2,057.  At  this  point  of  their  cost  the  goods  come  in  compe 
tition  with  goods  of  the  same  kind  produced  by  the  home  manufacturer. 
Thus  he  receives  a  protection  or  bounty  on  the  same  amount  of  goods 
($650)  of  $1,407,  or  217  percent,  ad  valorem! 

On  the  same  operation,  calculated  on  a  specie  basis,  the  results  will 
be  as  follows  :  cost  in  Liverpool  £130  —  $650.  Duties  and  charges  £90  = 
$450.  Total  cost  in  this  country,  $1,100.  Add  $110  for  the  profits  of 
the  importer — whole  sum  $1,210.  Deduct  first  cost  $650,  and  there  re 
mains  $460  bounty  to  the  home  manufacturer  on  the  same  amount  of 
goods,  or  86  per  cent,  ad  valorem  !  This  transaction  shows  that  the 
actual  protection  given  to  the  manufacturers  of  woollen  and  India-rubber 
goods  by  the  tariff  of  1862  is  more  than  double  the  rates  assumed  in  my 
calculation,  under  the  heads  of  Woollen  and  India-Rubber  Manufactures, 
which  were  35  and  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  My  demonstrations  on  that 
basis  are  sufficiently  startling,  although  they  fall  far  below  the  actual 
fact. 

This  single  transaction  demonstrates  beyond  cavil  the  immense  gains 
which  the  manufacturers  are  making  by  means  of  a  protective  tariff  and 
a  depreciated  paper  money  system.  Is  it  surprising  that  they  grow  rich? 
Will  it  be  a  matter  of  surprise  if  the  people  should  grow  poor  and  poorer 
under  the  operation  of  such  a  cunning  system  of  injustice  and  robbery? 
The  bandit  baron  who,  in  the  middle  ages,  ravished  his  tribute  money 


44  EIGHT   TEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

with  mailed  hand  from  the  innocent  wayfarer,  or  t^e  navigator  of  the 
river  which  flowed  past  his  castle,  practised  an  honest  system  compared 
to  the  shrewd  schemes  of  the  present  tariff  system. 

Again,  if  it  still  be  thought  that  my  calculations  are  inaccurate,  I  fur 
nish  the  House  with  another  actual  transaction.  Messrs.  Parker,  Gan 
nett  &  Osgood,  large  importers  of  seeds,  &c.,  in  Boston,  have  furnished 
the  following  statement  of  the  cost  of  importing  an  invoice  of  seeds : 

Cost  of  seeds  in  England  £40,  exchange  $4  85 $194  00 

Cost  of  tugs  and  casks 24  92 

Consul's  fees,  &c 5  83 

War  risk,  with  insurance 12  00 

Portage 75 

Duties,  30  per  cent,  gold $67  50 

Premium  on  gold 46  24 

Permit .' 20 

Bond 40 

Stamps 80 

Freight 21  45 

136  59 

Exchange  on  sterling,  £40 161  24 


$535  33 

Thus  it  costs  in  the  depreciated  currency  of  this  country  to  import  and 
land  in  Boston  $535.33  on  an  invoice  of  seeds  costing  only  £40  in  En 
gland,  equal  to  $194  in  the  gold  currency  of  the  United  States.  Add 
the  importer's  profits  at  10  per  cent.,  $53.53,  in  the  whole  $588.88,  and 
we  have  the  cost  in  our  market  at  wholesale  prices,  or  205  per  cent,  ad 
vance  on  the  first  cost  in  England  ! 

This  transaction  demonstrates  that  the  profits  of  the  home  manufac- 
facturer,  as  I  have  calculated  them,  derived  from  the  combined  effects  of 
a  high  tariff  and  a  depreciated  paper  currency,  are  very  far  below  the  actual 
truth.  Seeds  do  not  come  in  competition  with  the  home  producer. 
Manufactured  articles  do  compete  with  the  home  manufacturer,  and  on 
those  descriptions  of  goods  imported,  the  duty  is  much  higher  than  30 
per  cent.  The  statement  above  shows  that  under  the  present  system  the 
protection  given  to  the  home  manufacturer  cannot  be  less  than  200  per 
cent.,  and  in  most  instances  a  great  deal  more.  The  tables  herein  show 
that  it  is  from  148  to  150  per  cent ;  but  in  most  instances  they  omit 
freight,  insurance,  and  other  small  charges  ;  and  they  are  constructed  on 
the  basis  of  paper  depreciated  in  the  ratio  of  only  $1GO  for  $100  in 
gold. 

Another  fact  is  to  be  remarked  in  connection  with  the  statement  above. 
The  importation  was  a  quantity  of  seeds  for  the  benefit  of  the  farmer  and 
gardener.  They  are  taxed  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  payable  in 
gold.  In  a  table  which  I  will  hereafter  insert,  the  House  will  see  that 
all  raw  materials,  dye  stuffs,  &c.,  used  in  manufacturing,  are  taxed  with 
very  low  duties,  and  some  are  admitted  duty  free,  rags,  for  instance,  and 
some  71,000,000  of  pounds  of  wool  nearly  free.  This  is  justified  by  the 
speech  just  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  [Mr.  MORRILL], 
Thus  the  tariff  of  1862  discriminates  in  almost  every  particular  in  favor 
of  the  manufacturer  and  against  the  farmer. 


FINANCES,   TARIFFS,   ETC.  45 

How  long  will  the  class  which  I  represent — the  agricultural  portion 
of  the  community,  the  class  which  possesses  in  the  aggregate  three-fourths 
of  the  capital  of  the  country,  who  produce  the  greatest  share  of  its  an 
nual  income,  and  who  pay  the  greatest  portion  of  its  taxes — submit  to  be 
despoiled  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturing  classes  under  the  specious 
pretext  that  it  is  done  to  stimulate  the  industry  of  others,  and  is  necessary 
for  revenue  to  put  down  the  rebellion  and  save  the  Union  ? 


RECAPITULATION. 

I  now  propose  to  show  the  results  of  the  preceding  calculations  in  the 
condensed  form  of  tables. 

TABLE  I. 

Showing  the  cost  of  sundry  articles  imported  from  abroad  at  the  place  of  importation ; 
the  cost  in  our  market  at  the  point  of  competition  with  the  home  manufacture,  includ 
ing  original  cost ;  difference  of  exchange ;  freight,  on  iron  only  ;  duties,  and  import 
er  s  profits,  and  bounties  on  the  same  amount  of  goods  to  the  home  manufacturer  in 
dollars;  and  rates  per  cent.,  reckoned  upon  the  basis  of  the  standard  gold  currency  of 
the  United  States : 


Bounty  to  hoir 

e  manufac- 

Cost  at  Place  of 

Cost  in  our  mar- 

turer 

k 

Importation. 

exchange,  &c. 

In  dollars. 

Eate  per 
cent. 

Iron,  piff, 

$542,952 

$1,167,668 

$624  710 

115 

"     ruilro&cL 

1  858  979 

3  619  287 

1  760  303 

94 

"bar       

3,356,300 

6  120  108 

2  772  808 

80 

Cotton,  manufacture  of,    .     . 

24,647,648 

39,041,867 

14,394,219 

58 

"Woollen,  manufacture  of,   .     . 

27,750,371 

43,956,386 

16,206,215 

58 

Paper,  manufacture  of,      .     . 

509,542 

811,512 

301,970 

59 

Leather,  manufacture  of  (tan'd) 

2,437,592 

3,727,825 

1,289,485 

53 

Clothing,  manufactured,    .     . 

1,401,057 

2,219,273 

818,216 

58 

Boots  and  shoes,    .... 

69,447 

110,003 

40,556 

58 

Soap  and  candles,    .... 

108,953 

172,579 

63,626 

58 

India-rubber  goods,  .     .     .     . 

282,687 

447.761 

165,074 

58 

$64,965,528 

$101,394,069 

$38,437,182 

These  articles  are  selected  because  they  come  in  competition  with  the 
largest  classes  of  American  manufactures.  This  and  the  following  tables 
are  reconstructed  upon  the  basis  of  the  importations  of  1861,  the  census 
returns  of  1860,  and  the  rates  of  duty  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  1862, 
reduced  as  nearly  as  they  may  be  to  the  ad  valorem  standard.  I  have  not 
included  the  fifty  per  cent,  additional  upon  previous  rates  imposed  by 
the  recent  joint  resolution  ;  nor  the  additional  tariff  of  the  present  bill. 


EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 


TABLE  II. 

Showing  the  cost  of  sundry  articles  imported  from  abroad  at  the  place  of  importation  ; 
the  cost  in  our  market  at  the  point  of  competition  with  the  home  manufacturer,  in 
eluding  original  cost. ;  difference  of  exchange ;  freight,  on  iron  only  ;  duties,  and  import 
er's  profits,  and  bounties  on  the  same  amount  of  goods  to  the  home  manufacturer  in 
dollars,  and  rates  per  cent.,  reckoned  on  the  basis  of  the  paper  currency  of  the  United 
States,  depreciated  at  the  rate  of  only  $160  in  paper  to  $100  in  gold . 


Bounty  to  home 

manufac- 

ARTICLES. 

Cost  at  place  of 
importation. 

Cost  in  our  mar 
ket,  including 
exchange,  &c. 

turers. 

In  dollars. 

Rate  per 
cent. 

$542,952 

$1,685,301 

$142,349 

210 

u    railroad          .... 

1,858,929 

5,385,773 

3  526  794 

190 

"bar      

3,356,300 

9,303,858 

5,947,558 

170 

Cotton,  manufacture  of,    .     . 

24,647,648 

61,274,040 

36,226,412 

148 

"Woollen,  manufacture  of,    . 

27,750,371 

68,987,420 

41,237,049 

148 

Paper,  manufacture  of,     .     . 

509,542 

1,266,720 

757,178 

148 

Leather,  manufacture  of  (tan'd) 

2,437,592 

5,845,785 

3,408,193 

140 

Clothing,  manufactured  .     . 

1,401,057 

3,482,651 

2,081,594 

148 

Boots  and  shoes,     .... 

69,447 

172,632 

103,185 

149 

Soap  and  candles,  .... 

108,953 

270,856 

161,704 

150 

India-rubber  goods,   .     .    . 

282,687 

702,758 

419,871 

148 

$64,965,528 

$158,377,794 

$95,411,887 

TABLE  III. 

Showing  the  value  of  sundry  manufactures  produced  in  the  United  States  in  1860,  the 
bounties  received  by  the  home  manufacturer  under  the  tariff  of  1862,  in  rates  per  cent, 
and  in  dollars,  and  the  aggregate  of  original  value  and  bounties,  reckoned  according 
to  the  standard  gold  currency  of  the  United  States  . 


AETICLES. 

Value. 

Bounty. 

Aggregate 
Value  and 
Bounty. 

Kate  per 
cent 

In  dollars. 

Iron,  pig,     
"    bar  and  rolled,*  .     .     . 
Cotton,  manufacture  of,      .     . 
Woollen,  manufacture  of,  .     . 
Paper,  manufacture  of,  .     .    . 
Leather  (tanned),     .... 

$19,500,000 
22,000,000 
115,000,000 
69,000,000 
17,500,000 
72,000,000 
70,000,000 
90,000,000 
17,000,000 
5,729,900 

115 
87 
58 
58 
59 
53 
58 
58 
58 
58 

$22,425,000 
19,140,000 
66,700,000 
40,020,000 
10,325,000 
38,160,000 
40,600,000 
52,200,000 
9,860,000 
3,323,342 

$41,925,000 
41,140,000 
181,700,000 
109,020,000 
27,825,000 
110,160,000 
110,600,000 
142,200,000 
26,860,000 
9,053,242 

Clothing,  manufactured,      .     . 
Boots  and  shoes,      .... 
Soap  and  candles,      .     .     .     . 
India-rubber  goods,      .    .    . 

$497,729,900 

s:>,02,753,342 

$800,483,242 

*  Average  duty  on  iron — 


Rolled,  94 
Bar,      80 


2)174 

87  per  cent. 


FINANCES,   TARIFFS,    ETC. 


TABLE  IV. 


Showing  the  value  of  sundry  manufactures  produced  in  the  United  States  in  1860,  the 
bounties  received  by  the  home  manufacturer  under  the  tariff  of  18G2,  in  rates  percent, 
and  in  dollars,  and  the  aggregate  of  original  value  and  bounties  reckoned  according 
to  the  paper  currency  of  the  United  States,  depreciated  only  in  the  ratio  of  $160  in 
paper  to  $100  in  gold. 


] 

3ounty. 

Aggregate 

Paper  basis. 

Value  and 

Per  cent. 

In  dollars. 

Bounty. 

Iron,  pig,      

$19,500  000 

210 

$40  950  000 

<5fiA  Anf)  Af)A 

"    bar  and  rolled,*  .     . 

22,000,000 

180 

39,600,000 

61,600,000 

Cotton,  manufacture  of, 
Woollen,  manufacture  of,  . 
Paper,  manufacture  of,    . 
Leather  (tanned),     .     .     . 

115,000,000 
69,000,000 
17,500,000 
72,000,000 

148 
148 
148 
140 

169,200,000 
102,120,000 
25,900,000 
100,800,000 

284,200,000 
171,120,000 
43,400,000 
172,800,000 

Clothing  manufactured, 
Boots  and  shoes,    .     .     . 

70,000,000 
90,000,000 

148 
149 

103,600,000 
134,100,000 

173,600,000 
224,100,000 

Soap  and  candles,     .     .     . 
India-rubber  goods,  .    .    . 

17,000,000 
5,729,900 

150 
148 

25,500,000 
8,480,252 

42,500,000 
14,210,152 

$497,729,900 

$750,250,252 

$1,247,620,152 

Estimated  according  to  the  standard  gold  currency  of  the  United  States, 
on  an  aggregate  value  of  $497,729,900  of  manufactured  goods  of  the  de 
scription  stated  in  the  foregoing  tables,  the  home  manufacturers,  by  rea 
son  of  the  difference  in  exchange,  duties,  and  other  expenses  of  importa 
tion  of  foreign  articles  of  the  same  kind,  together  with  the  importer's 
profits,  derive,  through  the  agency  of  the  system  of  protection  established 
by  the  tariff  of  18G2,  an  aggregate  bounty  of  $302,753,342. 

The  tariff  and  the  other  expenses  of  importation  enable  the  home 
manufacturers  to  charge  and  levy  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States 
that  enormous  sum  every  year  in  gold  ;  supposing  the  manufactures  of  the 
country  to  be  the  same  in  amount  as  in  1860,  and  the  tariff  the  same  as 
that  of  1862. 

If  the  rates  are  more,  as  this  bill  proposes  to  make  them  more,  the 
sum  will  be  greater ;  if  less,  it  will  be  less  accordingly. 

The  population  of  the  United  States  in  1860  was  31,445,080  souls. 
Consequently  the  proportion  per  head  of  this  enormous  bounty  exacted  by 
the  manufacturers  in  gold  is  $9.62. 

Estimated  upon  the  basis  of  the  irredeemable  paper  currency  of  the 
United  States,  depreciated  only  in  the  ratio  of  $160  in  paper  to  $100  in 
gold,  the  aggregate  bounty  levied  by  the  home  manufacturers  on  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States  on  the  same  amount  of  domestic  manufactures, 
namely,  $497,729,900,  is  $750,250,252,  or  $23.88  per  head. 

When,  therefore,  I  propose  to  amend  this  bill  so  as  to  have  these  du- 

*  Average  duty  on  iron — 

Railroad,  190 
Bar,          170 

2)360 
180  per  cent. 


48  EIGHT   YEAES   m   COW5KES8. 

ties  payable  in  the  paper  currency  like  other  public  dues,  I  intend,  with 
full  knowledge  of  its  effect,  to  strike  off  at  least  $14.26  per  head  from 
the  burdens  which  labor  pays  from  its  hard  earnings  to  protect  and  pam 
per  the  "  splendid  paupers"  who  are  thus  living  upon  the  bounty  of  others. 
I  intend  to  save  from  the  grasp  of  the  millionnaire  and  manufacturer, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  man  and  consumer,  the  sum  of  $447,496,910 
on  the  rates  of  the  tariff  of  1862.  If  the  people  must  pay  bounty  to  the 
capitalist,  is  it  not  enough  to  pay  it  in  the  ordinary  paper  currency  by 
which  we  are  measuring  other  values?  Is  it  not  enough  to  pay  a  bounty 
in  paper  equal  to  the  sum  of  $302,753,342  now  levied  in  gold  upon  the 
articles  enumerated  ?  Think  of  it !  For  the  iron  which  we  use  in  all  its 
varieties  of  adaptation  ;  for  the  cotton  we  wear,  whether  printed  or  plain, 
in  the  calico  dress  or  the  shirting ;  for  the  wool  in  blanket,  carpet,  or 
clothing  ;  for  the  newspaper,  book,  and  pamphlet ;  for  the  leather  we  use 
when  tanned  or  manufactured  into  boots  and  shoes  ;  for  the  clothing  we 
buy  already  made  up  ;  for  the  soap  and  candles  and  India-rubber  goods  ; 
for  these  only,  under  our  tariff  of  1862,  and  not  counting  our  recent  in 
crease  or  the  proposed  increase  of  this  bill,  we  pay  as  gratuity  to  one 
class  of  persons  the  enormous  sum  of  $750,250,252. 

Will  any  one  pretend  that  all  this  is  for  revenue  ?  What !  when  the 
tariff  does  not  raise  one-tenth  of  that  sum  on  all  articles  of  importation ! 
What,  then,  is  this  $750,250,252  paid  for?  Not  for  war,  not  for  debts, 
not  for  expenses.  Is  it  possible  that  we  have  to  pay  on  some  ten  articles 
only,  in  paper  money,  $750,000,000  to  get  less  than  $50,000,000  of 
revenue  from  them?  Mr.  Hays,  comptroller  of  Chicago,  with  keen 
analysis,  once  showed  that,  by  the  tariff  acts  of  1846  and  1857,  the 
people  paid  the  startling  sum  of  $338,000,000  to  afford  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  a  revenue  of  $54,000,000  ;  and  he  prophesied  that  by  the  tariff  of 
1862  the  loss  to  the  community  would  be  still  greater.  How  much 
greater  is  apparent  from  my  calculations  on  the  depreciated  paper  system 
and  the  increased  duties  of  1862  ! 

"  What,  then,  do  you  propose  ?  To  abolish  all  tariffs  ?  "  Yes.  God 
save  the  people  from  these  indirect  and  insidious  robberies  !  In  their 
name  let  such  tariffs  be  abolished.  Since  you  have  begun  on  internal 
taxation,  let  all  our  revenues  be  thus  levied.  If  you  abolish  the  tariff 
of  1862,  then,  to  pay  the  other  taxes,  you  give  to  the  people  an  increased 
ability  to  the  amount  of  $750,250,252  on  the  few  articles  alone  which  I 
enumerated  ;  and  how  much  more  on  all  manufactured  articles  !  Abolish 
your  tariffs,  and  if  your  direct  taxes  arc  unfair  they  are  not  unfelt,  and 
can  be  speedily  corrected.  Abolish  your  tariffs,  and  let  every  interest 
stand  undisguised  before  the  law  ;  the  farmer  the  equal  of  the  manufac 
turer  ;  the  laboring  man  the  equal  of  the  millionnaire.  No  mask  of  indus 
try  over  the  features  of  capital ;  no  unjust  discriminations  ;  no  despoiling 
one  class  of  labor  under  the  pretence  of  stimulating  another ;  no  unhealthy 
drugging  of  any  one  business  by  the  robbery  of  another. 

But  instead  of  mitigating,  you  propose  to  aggravate  these  oppressions. 
By  your  joint  resolution  the  other  day  you  have  added  to  these  onerous 
rate?  of  1862  fifty  per  cent.  more.  If  this  is  not  to  be  continued  after  the 
1st  of  tfuly,  we  are  at  least  to  pay  a  large  increase  by  the  present  bill. 
We  are  expected,  we  of  the  West,  to  pay  our  share  of  it — as  I  shall  show, 


FINANCES,   TARIFFS,    ETC.  49 

the  larger  share — without  murmur ;  because  the  war,  instigated  by  the 
section  which  reaps  most  of  these  gigantic  sums  from  our  toil  and  sweat, 
demands  our  support ! 

Very  well.  For  over  two  years  we  have  submitted.  But  if  we  are 
to  keep  on  patiently  in  submission,  a  few  years  will  see  all  our  resources 
sucked  from  us  by  these  vampires  of  the  East.  If  taxes  must  be  raised  for 
war  or  for  debts,  to  pay  for  the  peculations  of  scoundrels  or  for  the  patriotic 
service  of  soldiers,  let  them  be  levied  directly,  fairly,  justly,  that  all  may 
feel  their  operation,  and  the  burdens,  sufficiently  great  for  a  whole  people, 
may  not  be  borne  by  a  part,  and  that  part  which  is  the  least  able  to  bear 
them. 

The  people  are  the  victims  of  the  joint  robbery  of  a  system  of  bounties 
under  the  guise  of  duties,  and  of  an  inconvertible  and  depreciated  paper 
currency  under  the  guise  of  money.  Is  it  a  cause  of  wonder  that  the 
manufacturers  accumulate  wealth  so  rapidly,  that  they  grow  rich  within  a 
year  if  they  were  poor  before  ?  This  system  is  rapidly  building  up  an 
aristocracy,  composed  of  manufacturers  and  gamblers  in  irredeemable 
paper  money.  In  the  same  proportion  it  is  impoverishing  the  masses  of 
the  people.  It  is  rapidly  reducing  them  to  the  same  level  of  destitution 
and  degradation  as  that  of  the  people  of  Europe.  Only  here  it  is  worse, 
for  here  it  is  in  combination  with  a  depreciated  paper-money  system,  which 
the  aristocrats  of  Europe  do  not  tolerate.  This  combination  is  rushing 
the  American  people  along  with  headlong  speed  to  inevitable  ruin.  In 
the  name  of  the  laboring  people  of  my  district  and  State,  in  behalf  of  those 
the  results  of  whose  toil  are  thus  torn  from  their  families  to  pamper  wealth 
and  arrogance,  I  protest  against  this  system  of  oppression.  In  behalf  of 
the  poor  men  who  work  from  day  to  day  in  shop  and  field,  from  whose 
labor  at  last  all  these- millions  are  wrung  ;  in  behalf  of  those  who  cannot 
and  do  not  combine  to  subsidize  the  press,  fee  lawyers,  importune  Con 
gress  ;  who  cannot  afford  to  take  their  little  all  from  their  families  to  pay 
sharp  men  for  keen  devices  to  "  cheat  by  statute  ; "  in  their  behalf  I  do 
challenge  the  honesty  and  justice  of  these  measures. 

Mr.  Chairman,  no  man  is  now  so  wise  and  gifted  that  he  can  save  this 
nation  from  bankruptcy.  I  believe  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  [Mr. 
MORRILL]  himself  expressed  his  belief  in  our  ultimate  ruin. 

Mr.  MORRILL.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  yield  to  me  to  correct  his 
remark.  I  made  no  prophecy  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  am  glad  to  be  put  right.     I  so  understood  him. 

No  borrowing  system  can  save  us.  The  scheme  of  making  green 
backs  a  legal  tender,  which  enabled  the  debtor  to  cheat  his  creditor, 
thereby  playing  the  old  game  of  kingcraft,  to  debase  the  currency  in  order 
to  aid  the  designs  of  despotism,  may  float  us  for  a  while  amidst  the 
fluctuations  and  bubbles  of  the  day ;  but  as  no  one  possesses  the  power  to 
repeal  the  law  of  the  Almighty,  which  decrees  (and  as  our  Constitution 
has  established)  that  gold  and  silver  shall  be  the  standard  of  value  in  the 
world,  so  they  will  ever  thus  remain,  notwithstanding  the  legislation  of 
Congress.  Congress  may  make  paper  the  measure  of  prices,  but  it  can 
never  make  paper  the  standard  of  value.  Such  a  paper  system  in  con 
nection  with  this  tariff  will,  sooner  or  later,  crush  labor  in  this  country. 
What  then  ?  When  our  laboring  masses  shall  have  become  sufficiently 
4 


50  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

impoverished  by  this  system,  will  not  the  transition  from  a  republic  to  a 
despotism  be  easy?  Will  not  that  phenomenon  of  tyranny,  the  armed 
soldier  accompanying  the  tax-gatherer,  occnr  here  ?  Does  not  the  ques 
tion  of  taxation,  therefore,  involve  the  problem  of  liberty?  Does  not 
this  system,  against  which  in  its  every  stage  I  have  protested,  involve  an 
enormous  Avickedness  against  the  interests  and  happiness  of  mankind  ? 

The  present  tariff  system  has  been  devised  for  the  benefit  of  the 
manufacturer,  at  the  expense  of  the  people,  and  yet  it  does  not  really  aid 
the  Treasury.  If  it  makes  the  rich  richer  and  the  poor  poorer,  then,  by 
this  concentration  of  wealth  in  a  few,  the  less  is  the  proportion  of  it  which 
will  be  paid  into  the  Treasury.  Sismondi,  page  79,  says  that  all  returns 
show  that  the  great  amount  of  revenue  is  not  paid  by  the  rich,  or  even  by 
the  middle  classes,  but  by  the  poor  and  those  just  above  them.  He  holds 
that  all  attempts  at  taxation  of  luxuries  have  failed  in  productiveness. 
The  state  of  the  revenue  depends  mainly  on  the  power  of  the  poor  to 
purchase  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life.  Hence,  any  system  like 
this,  which  aggrandizes  wealth  in  a  few,  destroys  the  great  resources  of 
revenue  upon  which  we  are  to  depend  at  last  for  our  credit  and  our 
safety. 

Again,  as  many  of  the  duties  are  prohibitory,  no  revenue  is  derived 
from  them,  and  the  Treasury  again  loses.  Under  such  duties,  paper,  boots 
and  shoes,  soap  and  candles,  India-rubber  fabrics,  in  fact  nearly  all  the 
articles  named  in  the  foregoing  tables,  enjoy  a  monopoly  in  our  market, 
while  in  many  instances  the  tariff  of  1862  permits  certain  articles  used 
by  the  manufacturers  to  be  imported  either  free  or  at  nominal  duties.  For 
instance,  rags  free ;  India  rubber,  raw,  10  per  cent. ;  lasting  for  ladies' 
boots  and  shoes  and  for  soles,  10  per  cent.  In  I860,  $904,852  worth  of 
paper  rags  were  imported  duty  free.  These  rags  went  into  manufactured 
paper,  and  upon  that  amount  of  stock,  duty  free,  the  paper  makers  <were 
permitted  to  charge  their  enormous  profits.  And  so  with  regard  to  other 
articles  admitted  with  slight  duty  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturer. 

When  the  manufacturer  produces  an  ample  supply  of  goods  for  the 
home  market,  and  has  a  large  surplus  for  which  he  is  compelled  to  seek  a 
market  abroad,  it  is  just  to  exempt  the  raw  material  which  he  uses  from 
duty,  because  he  again  carries  it  out  of  the  country  in  the  shape  of  manu 
factured  goods.  In  that  case,  it  operates  so  far  as  a  drawback.  Such  is 
the  policy  of  Great  Britain.  But  when  the  manufacturer  has  the  sub 
stantial  control  of  the  home  market,  through  the  agency  of  prohibitory 
duties,  there  can  be  no  greater  iniquity  practised  on  the  people  than  to 
permit  him  to  tax  his  enormous  profit  upon  the  very  article  which  the 
Government  admits  duty  free,  or  nearly  so.  Is  it  not  legalized  robbery, 
more  detestable  in  its  enormity  than  the  actual  crime  ?  Yet  the  party  in 
power  have  inaugurated  a  tariff  system  which  authorizes  and  sanctions 
this  very  iniquity. 

The  estimates  from  which  I  draw  these  conclusions  cannot  be  precisely 
accurate.  It  is  not  assumed  that  they  are.  It  is  only  claimed  that  they 
are  an  approximation  to  the  truth.  The  most  important  element  of  error 
is  the  basis  of  the  value  of  home  manufactures  in  the  census  tables  of 
I860,  whether  the  actual  cost  or  the  price  by  wholesale  in  market.  There 
fore,  in  order  to  state  the  case  in  the  most  favorable  form  for  the  home 


FINANCES,    TAEIFFS,    ETC. 


51 


manufacturer,  I  will  assume  that  upon  tlic  basis  of  the  depreciated  paper 
currency  of  the  United  States,  their  profits  or  bounties  are  at  the  rate  of 
100  per  cent.,  or  in  the  aggregate  $497,729,900,  or  $15.83  per  head  of 
the  population  of  the  United  States.' 

To  recapitulate.  Rate  of  profit  or  bounty,  reckoned  upon  the  specie 
standard:  $497,729,900,  it  is  6302,753,342  bounty,  or  $9.62  per  head. 
Paper  standard:  $497,729,900,  it  is  $750,250,252  bounty,  or  $23.88  per 
head.  Bounty  at  rate  of  100  per  cent.:  $497,729,900,  it  is  $497,729,900 
bounty,  or  $15.83  per  head. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  first  estimate  I  make  upon  the  present 
tariff  is  on  a  specie  basis.  On  this  basis,  the  taxation,  or  tribute  to  the 
manufacturer,  is  at  the  rate  of  $9.62  per  head.  My  second  estimate  is 
made  upon  the  same  tariff  and  a  paper-money  basis  depreciated  in  the 
ratio  of  $160  to  $100.  On  this  basis,  the  taxation  or  tribute  is  $23.88 
per  head.  My  third  estimate  is  upon  the  basis  of  allowing  the  manufac 
turer  to  receive  a  tribute  of  100  per  cent.  On  this  basis  the  taxation  or 
tribute  is  $15.83  per  head.  These  estimates  are  embodied  in  the  three 
following  tables,  from  which  it  will  appear  how  the  tribute  is  levied  upon 
the  various  States : 


States. 


Indiana. . . 
Illinois.  . . 

Iowa 

Kentucky. 
Kansas . . . 
Michigan. . 
Minnesota. 
Missouri. . 
Nebraska. 

Ohio 

Wisconsin. 


TABLE  1  (Specie  basis'). 


Population. 

1,350,428 

1,711,951 
674,913 

1,155,684 
107,206 
749,113 
172,123 

1,182,012 
28,841 

2,339,511 
775,881 


Per  head. 
$9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 
9  62 


Aggregate 10,247,( 


$9  62 


Tribute. 
$12,991,117 

16,468,968 
6,492,663 

11,117,680 
1,031,321 
7,206,467 
1,655,832 

11,370,955 
277,350 

22,506,095 
7,463,975 

$99,582,415 


States. 


Indiana. 
Illinois. . . 
Iowa .... 

Kentucky. 


Michigan. . 
Minnesota . 
Missouri. . 
Nebraska  . 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 


TABLU  2  (Paper  basis). 


Population. 

1,350,428 

1,711,951 

674,913 

1,155,684 

107,206 

749,113 

172,123 

1,182,012 

28,841 

•  2,339,411 

775,881 


Per  head.  Tribute. 

$23  88  $32,248,220 

23  88  40,880,928 

23  88  16,116,923 

23  88  27,597,734 

23  88  2,560,079 

23  88  17,888,818 

23  88  4,110,297 

23  88  28,226,446 

23  88  688,623 

23  88  55,867,522 

23  88  18,528,038 


10,247,663  $23  88  $244,713,278 


52  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGKESS. 

TABLE  3  (Bounty  100  per  cent). 

States.  Population.  Per  head.  Tribute. 

Indiana..               1,350,428  $15  83  $21,377,275 

Illinois          1,711,951  15  83  27,100,184 

Iowa 674,913  1583  10,683,872 

Kentucky      1,155,684  1583  18,294,477 

Kansas 107,206  1583  1,697,321 

Michigan                      749,113  15  83  11,858,458 

Minnesota 172,123  1583  1,697,070 

Missouri 1,182,012  1583  18,711,250 

Nebraska 28,841  15  83  456,553 

Ohio  2,339,510  15  83  37,034,459 

Wisconsin 775,881  15  83  11,282,196 


Aggregate  .............       10,247,663  $15  83 


Thus,  it  appears  from  the  preceding  tables  that  the  tribute  which  the 
eleven  western  States  pay  to  the  manufacture  of  the  country,  residing 
mainly  in  the  eastern  States,  in  consequence  of  the  falsely  called  protec 
tive  system  and  paper-money  system  of  this  country,  is,  as  reckoned 

On  the  specie  basis  .......................  899,582,414,  or  $9  62  per  head. 

"      paper  basis  .......................  244,713,728,  or  23  88        " 

"       basis  of  100  per  cent  ...............  160,193,151,  or  15  83        " 

Whole  consumption  of  the  articles  of  manufacture  named  in  the 
preceding  tables  three  and  four,  including  cost  and  tribute  or  bounty,  is 
as  follows  : 

On  the  specie  basis  ....................................  $25  45  per  head. 

"      paper  basis  .....................................  39  71        " 

"       basis  of  100  per  cent  .............................   3166        " 

On  reflection,  every  intelligent  man  will  perceive  that,  allowing  the 
manufacturers  at  the  rate  of  100  per  cent,  profit  on  the  various  fabrics 
and  goods  enumerated  in  the  preceding  tables,  $31.66  per  head  is  not  a 
large  consumption  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  preceding 
tables  and  calculations  develop  the  most  astounding  results.  They  show 
that  a  tariff  system  under  the  pretext  of  raising  revenue  for  the  use  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  has,  in  this  period  of  war  when 
every  dollar  is  needed,  been  so  devised  as  to  give  the  most  extraordinary 
and  unreasonable  bounty  to  the  manufacturing  classes,  in  the  case  of 
many  articles,  virtually  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  the  competing  ar 
ticle  into  the  country. 

PROTECTED   AND   NON-PROTECTED    STATES. 

From  the  facts  which  we  have  presented,  and  the  tables  showing  the 
leading  productions  of  the  western  States,  it  will  be  perceived  that  the 
States  of  the  Union  may  be  divided  into  two  great  classes  —  the  protected 
States  and  the  unprotected  States.  We  speak  in  regard  to  their  indus 
trial  interests. 

The  manufacturing  States,  mainly  the  New  England  States  and  Penn 
sylvania,  are  the  protected  States.  The  agricultural  States  are  the  un 
protected  States. 


FINANCES,   TARIFFS,   ETC.  53 

States  that  produce  a  commodity  in  such  abundance  as  to  furnish  an 
ample  supply  for  home  consumption  and  a  large  surplus  for  markets  abroad 
can  derive  no  benefit  from  protective  duties. 

Our  Government  might  impose  a  duty  on  wheat  and  flour  which  would 
be  absolutely  prohibitory,  and  it  would  not  increase  the  prices  of  those 
articles  in  Chicago  or  New  York.  Thus  the  agricultural  States  derive 
no  protection  from  the  duties  imposed  by  the  present  tariff  on  articles  pro 
duced  by  agricultural  industry.  The  men  who  devised  the  present  tariff 
knew  that  a  duty  on  corn,  wheat,  tobacco,  or  cotton,  was  of  no  possible 
benefit  to  the  producers  of  those  articles.  They  were  only  tubs  thrown 
to  the  whale,  put  in  the  tariff  for  the  purpose  of  deluding  the  ignorant  and 
unreflecting  with  the  mere  pretence  of  justice. 

Mr.  MORRILL.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  did  not  vote 
here  the  other  day  against  the  termination  of  the  reciprocity  treaty,  the 
termination  of  which  would  admit  all  the  agricultural  products  of  Canada 
free  of  duty,  and  if  it  is  possible  to  levy  duties  upon  those  agricultural 
products  without  a  termination  of  the  treaty  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  precisely  remember  how  I  did  vote  upon  it,  but  I 
know  how  I  ought  to  have  voted.  The  question  got  a  little  complicated. 
I  am  for  allowing  the  largest  liberty  of  interchange  possible.  I  never 
was  afraid  of  buying  in  the  cheapest  market  and  selling  in  the  dearest 
market  I  could  find.  That  is  my  doctrine,  which  I  learned  from  a  distin 
guished  citizen  of  New  England.  I  have  never  departed  from  that  doc 
trine,  and  therefore  I  am  in  favor  of  the  largest  reciprocity  treaty ;  be 
lieving  that  the  larger  it  is  the  better  it  is  for  the  mass  of  our  people. 

Mr.  MORRILL.  How  does  the  gentleman  propose  to  remedy  the  matter 
by  having  a  treaty  of  perfect  reciprocity  and  a  system  of  tariff  duties  at 
the  same  time? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  propose  to  extend  it  to  all  other  articles  as  soon  as  I  can 
reach  them,  and  to  abolish  all  indirect  and  insidious  taxation  in  the  shape 
of  tariffs. 

When  interrupted  I  was  showing  that  the  tendency  of  the  present 
tariff  system,  and  in  fact  of  all  tariffs,  revenue  or  protective,  more  or 
less  is  to  drain  wealth  from  the  unprotected  States  and  accumulate  it  in 
the  protected  States. 

It  can  now  be  understood  why  New  England  accumulates  wealth  so 
much  more  rapidly  than  the  western  States.  I  know  it  is  arrogantly  said, 
"  New  England  has  more  intelligence,  thrift,  invention,  and  industry."  I 
need  not  deny  that,  and  yet  I  can  account  for  her  immense  gains  on 
another  principle. 

The  interests  of  New  England,  and  especially  of  Massachusetts,  are  all 
subjects  of  protection  or  bounty  directly  from  the  General  Government. 
We  have  shown  how  her  leading  manufacturing  interests  are  protected. 
Her  fishing  interests  are  also  encouraged  by  a  direct  bounty  from  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  ;  a  half  million,  I  believe  it  is,  being  yearly 
paid  to  the  fishermen  of  Massachusetts  as  a  mere  bounty,  a  gratuity  with 
out  consideration.  We  in  the  West  ask  and  get  no  bounty  for  the  white 
fish  of  our  lakes  or  the  cat  fish  of  our  rivers. 

We  refer  more  particularly  to  Massachusetts,  for  the  reason  that  to  her 
agency  more  than  to  any  other  is  to  be  attributed  the  civil  war  which  nov.' 


54  EIGHT   YEAE8   IN   CONGRESS. 

devastates  our  country  and  threatens  the  destruction  of  its  civil  institutions 
and  of  republican  liberty.  That  State  has  been  the  unceasing  and  un 
principled  agitator,  the  fomenter  of  discord  between  the  sections,  the  dis 
seminator  of  fanatical  and  dogmatical  opinion,  and  the  assailant  of  the 
constitutional  rights  of  other  States ;  and  has  thus  done  more  than  all 
other  States  to  bring  our  present  calamities  upon  us.  It  is  meet,  there 
fore,  that  we  should  consider  how  much  she  has  been  benefited  by  the 
Union  whose  very  existence  she  has  put  to  such  fearful  hazard. 

It  is  proper  also,  in  this  connection,  to  remark  that  while  Massachu 
setts  has  been  most  benefited  during  the  present  war  by  the  agency  of  the 
combined  tariff  and  paper-money  system,  she  has  done  the  least  to  support 
the  war.  Under  the  various  calls  for  troops  up  to  March  1,  1864,  Massa 
chusetts  has  been  reported  deficient  20,592  men,  a  much  larger  number  in 
proportion  to  her  population  than  any  other  State  ;  and  in  order  to  fill 
her  quotas,  instead  of  sending  her  own  meddlesome  and  mischievous 
citizens  into  the  field,  and  exposing  their  precious  persons  to  the  hazards 
of  camp  and  battle,  she  has  ransacked  almost  every  State  in  the  Union, 
and  even  Canada  and  Europe,  for  men,  filling  her  regiments  with  worthless 
substitutes  and  negroes.  She  is  coining  money  out  of  the  precious  blood 
of  the  land  and  the  enormous  waste  of  wealth  in  this  terrible  war,  while 
she  takes  care  that  her  own  blood  shall  be  preserved.  She  is  the  most 
arrogant  and  mischievous  State,  the  most  selfish  and  timid  in  the  war 
which  her  mischievous  propensities  have  provoked,  and  she  has  the  least 
title  of  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union  to  the  favors  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  DAWES.  It  is  not  only  an  old  story,  but  it  had  its  origin  and  was 
nursed  into  growth  by  the  men  who  are  now  arrayed  as  rebels  against  the 
Union ;  and  my  friend  from  Ohio  is  but  repeating  their  old  and  stale 
charges,  ground  into  impalpable  powder  by  the  truth  long  ago. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  heard  the  gentleman  say  that  once  before.  I  learned 
my  principles  not  from  any  one  in  the  South,  but  from  Dr.  Wayland, 
known  in  New  England  and  throughout  the  country  as  a  good  and  great 
man ;  and  it  would  not  invalidate  his  doctrines  if  Davis  and  Toombs 
should  repeat  them  from  morning  till  night  and  from  year  to  year.  It 
would  not  prove  the  truth  or  falsity  of  his  principles.  If  Jefferson  Davis 
should  tell  the  gentleman  that  two  and  two  make  four,  lie  would  deny  it. 
When  Davis  says  that  two  and  two  make  five,  I  deny  it.  Because  a  man 
now  in  rebellion,  when  once  here,  stated  the  truths  and  facts  in  economy, 
which  I  believe,  while  I  disbelieve  in  secession,  it  does  not  militate  against 
these  economic  truths  that  he  believes  in  secession.  It  is  not  relevant  to 
the  argument  for  the  gentleman  to  bring  the  heresies  of  secession  here  to 
disprove  the  injustice  of  the  protective  system  on  tariffs.  I  know  many 
abolitionists — among  them  Wendell  Phillips — who  are  free-trade  men. 
Does  it  follow,  therefore,  that  Wendell  Phillips  is  a  disunionist?  I  know 
he  is  a  disunionist ;  but  for  another  reason,  and  not  for  that. 

Mr.  DAWES.  I  am  not  troubling  the  gentleman  with  the  inquiry  as  to 
where  he  learned  his  principles.  That  is  a  thing  I  have  not  the  least 
concern  about.  What  I  said  was  that  his  charges  against  New  England 
were  an  old  story,  first  taught  by  the  men  who  plotted  and  are  now  carry 
ing  on  the  rebellion,  and  the  gentleman  is  but  repeating  them  here. 
Where  he  got  his  principles  will  be  a  matter  of  the  least  concern  to  us  of 


55 

New  England,  who  have  no  disposition  to  follow  them  out  or  adopt  them. 
The  charges  which  he  brings  against  New  England  to-day  can  be  found, 
in  hcec  verba,  in  the  speeches  of  southern  nullifiers  from  John  Calhoun 
clear  down  to  the  last  of  them  who  took  his  leave  of  us  in  this  House  in 
the  Congress  before  the  present. 

Mr.  Cox.     That  will  do. 

Mr.  DAWES.     That  is  all  I  want. 

Mr.  Cox.  Because  John  C.  Calhoun  and  such  men  disfavored  the  idea 
of  bounties  to  manufacturers,  and  also  favor  that  of  secession,  therefore  any 
opposition  to  bounties  is  a  fallacy  like  secession  !  According  to  that  reason 
ing,  Adam  Smith  was  a  secessionist ;  and  the  great  body  of  eminent  men 
who  have  been  true  economists — Sismondi,  McCulloch,  Cobden,  and  in 
cluding  even  the  venerable  Dr.  Wayland — who  have  laid  down  the  doc 
trine  which  I  have  to-day  advanced,  must  all  be,  regardless  of  the  foolish 
anachronism,  secessionists  I  Such  is  the  result  of  the  sapient  argumenta 
tion  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.  Daniel  Webster  himself  advo 
cated  free  trade  once  for  New  England,  and  John  C.  Calhoon  advocated 
protection.  As  Webster  was  for  free  trade,  he  was  a  secessionist,  I  sup 
pose  !  The  principles  which  I  have  applied  to  the  facts  stated  do  not  de 
pend  upon  who  have  announced  them,  but  upon  their  truth.  If  those  men 
in  rebellion  have  argued  in  favor  of  truth  on  one  subject,  am  I  to  give  it  up  ? 
If  the  devil  should  tell  the  truth,  am  I  to  deny  it  ?  The  gentleman  him 
self  may  ;  but  he  yields  to  the  devil  when  he  does  it.  I  do  not ;  therefore 
I  do  not  yield  to  the  gentleman.  Neither  is  it  true  that  I  have  copied  in 
this  argument  the  speeches  of  southern  nullifiers  in  hmc  verba.  No  argu 
ment  on  the  tariff  has  ever  been  made  on  the  basis  of  the  census  of  1860, 
and  in  connection  with  and  in  relation  to  our  paper-money  system.  » I 
venture  to  say  that  these  views  are  as  new  as  they  are  true. 

The  CHAIRMAN  (Mr.  SCHENCK).  The  hour  of  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio  has  expired. 

Mr.  MALLORT.    I  hope  the  gentleman  will  be  allowed  to  conclude. 

Unanimous  consent  being  given, 

Mr.  Cox  proceeded,  as  follows  : 

It  may  not  be  gratifying  to  the  gentleman,  but  I  propose  to  prove  all 
I  said,  and  shall  exhibit,  without  fear  of  the  charge  of  secession,  the  in 
terests  of  Massachusetts  which  enjoy  the  protective  bounties  of  the  Federal 
Government  at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  other  portions  of  the  Union. 

Capital  invested  and  production  of  Massachusetts  in  the  following 
manufactures  in  1860  : 

Capital  Invested.  Production. 

Cotton* $33,300,000  $36,745,864 

Woollen 10,179,500  12,781,514 

Leatherf 10,540,056 

Boots  and  shoes 11,169,277  46,440,209 

Fisheries! ....  9,300,542 

$54,648,777  $115,662,185 

In  all  manufactures 133,000,000  266,000,000 

*  Cotton  manufactured  in  New  Hampshire, 

owned  mainly  in  Massachusetts,  should  be 

added 13,780,000  16,661,531 

f  Capital  not  given  in  the  census  table. 


56 


EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 


In  the  above  exhibit  the  House  can  see  what  immense  interests  Massa 
chusetts  possesses  which  enjoy  protection  and  bounty,  and  why  it  is  her 
Representatives  are  so  sensitive  when  we  of  other  States  undertake  to  call 
her  to  account  for  her  unrighteous  gains.  By  applying  the  principle  of 
calculation  herein  before  applied  to  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the 
whole  country,  it  can  be  ascertained  how  much  in  dollars  and  cents 
Massachusetts  unjustly  abstracts  in  the  form  of  protective  bounties  from 
the  people  of  the  Union.  Nor,  in  view  of  this  exhibit,  can  any  one  be 
surprised  that  Massachusetts,  located  in  a  rigorous  climate  and  possessed 
of  a  sterile  soil,  should  accumulate  wealth  more  rapidly  than  any  other 
State. 

We  close  our  view  of  the  operations  of  the  tariff  and  paper-money  sys 
tem  by  appending  sundry  tables  showing  some  of  the  leading  unprotected 
products,  contrasting  the  New  England  and  western  States.  Perhaps 
my  friend  from  Massachusetts  may  think  before  I  am  done,  that  the  census 
was  taken  in  Massachusetts  by  secessionists. 

UNPROTECTED  PRODUCTS. 

Lumber. 

New  England  States , $12,099,895 

Western  States 33,274,792 


Cattle. 


New  England  States.  Head. 

Maine 377,067 

New  Hampshire 264,467 

Massachusetts 279,914 

Vermont 364,917 

Rhode  Island 39, 105 

Connecticut 241,907 

1,567,377 


Western  States. 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Ohio 

Wisconsin . . 


Head. 
,505,581 
,170,005 
536,254 
87,859 
836,059 
534,267 
119,006 
,168,984 
,659,830 
512,866 


In  New  England  States 

Balance  in  favor  of  western  States 


8,130,711 
1,567,377 

6,563,334 


Here  Mr.  Cox  gave  the  same  details  as  to  these  States  on  other  arti 
cles,  of  which  the  following  is  a 


RECAPITULATION. 


New  England  States. 

Lumber,  value §12,099,895 

Cattle,  head 1,567,377 

Swine,  number 322,697 

Slaughtered  animals,  value.$15,927,442 

Wheat,  bushels 1,456,011 

Indian  corn,  bushels 7,564,551 

Butter,  pounds 51,180,083 

Cheese,  pounds 21,479,396 


Western  States. 

Lumber,  value $33,274,793 

Cattle,  head 8,130,711 

Swine,  number 13,498,328 

Slaughtered  animals,  value.  $73,663,587 

Wheat,  bushels 100,656,545 

Indian  corn,  bushels 462,012,098 

Butter,  pounds 164,991,279 

Cheese,  pounds 30,615,403 


FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC. 


57 


Balance  in  favor  of  Western  States. 

Lumber,  value $21,204,898 

Cattle,  head 6,563,334 

Swine,  number 13,175,631 

Slaughtered  animals,  value $57,736,145 

Wheat,  bushels 99,200,534 

Indian  corn,  bushels 454,447,547 

Butter,  pounds   113,811,196 

Cheese,  pounds 9,136,107 

Classification  of  States  and  Territories  according  to  the  Ccnxus  of  1860. 


N.  England  States. 

Middle  States. 

"Western  States. 

Southern  States. 

Pacific  Stales. 

Maine, 

New  York, 

Ohio, 

Virginia, 

New  Mexico, 

New  Hampshire, 

Pennsylvania, 

Indiana, 

North  Carolina, 

Utah, 

Vermont, 

New  Jersey, 

Michigan, 

South  Carolina, 

California, 

Massachusetts, 

Delaware, 

Illinois, 

Georgia, 

Oregon. 

Rhode  Island, 

Maryland, 

Wisconsin, 

Florida, 

Connecticut. 

Dist.  Columbia. 

Minnesota, 

Alabama, 

Iowa, 

Louisiana, 

Missouri, 

Texas, 

Kentucky, 

Mississippi, 

Kansas, 

Arkansas, 

Nebraska. 

Tennessee. 

Value  of  Cotton  manufactured  in  1860. 

New  England  States $80,301,535 

Middle  States 26,272,111 

Southern  States 7,172,293 

Western-States 1,391,987 


$115,137,926 

Massachusetts $36,735,864 

New  Hampshire  (owned  chiefly  in  Massachusetts) 16,661,531 

$53,397,395 

In  consequence  of  the  diminished  supply  of  cotton,  this  branch  of 
manufacture  has  considerably  fallen  off,  but  to  what  extent  I  have  not  the 
means  of  calculating. 

Value  of  Woollen  manfactures  in  1860. 

New  England  States. .                                $38,509,080 

Middle  States 24,100,488 

Southern  States 2,303,303 

Western  States. .                                                 3,718,092 


Aggregate. 


$68,630,963 


In  Massachusetts _$18,930,OOQ 

Since  1860,  stimulated  by  the  diminished  supply  of  cotton  goods,  the 
woollen  manufactures  of  the  country  have  been  more  than  doubled.     In 


58  EIGHT   YEARS   EST   CONGRESS. 

relation  to  the  increase  of  the  woollen  manufacture  in  the  United  States, 
the  Boston  Shipping  List,  under  date  of  December  11,  1863,  thus  re 
marks  : 

"  We  have  lately  called  attention  to  the  rapid  increase  of  woollen  machinery,  and  the 
questionable  policy  of  introducing  woollen  machinery  into  cotton  mills  now  idle.  The  rush 
for  woollens  for  some  time  past  is  starting  up  new  mills  in  all  directions.  It  is  estimated 
that  there  has  been  added  within  the  past  eighteen  months  about  1,000  sets,  an  increase 
of  40  per  cent.,  and  manufacturers  of  machinery  are  full  of  contracts  for  several  months 
in  advance.  The  above  does  not  include  the  woollen  machinery  in  operation  in  Pennsyl 
vania  and  other  parts  of  the  United  States,  which  was  not  less  than  1,000  sets  eighteen 
months  since,  and  the  increase  has  doubtless  been  quite  equal  to  the  increase  in  the  New 
England  States.  The  product  of  all  the  machinery  is  estimated  at  from  $135,000,000  to 
$150,000,000  worth  of  goods  per  annum." 

Value  of  Boots  and  Shoes  made  in  1860. 

New  England  States $54,767,077 

Middle  States 22,588,291 

Southern  States 2,729,327 

Western  States 9,465,205 


Aggregate $89,549,900 


In  Massachusetts $46,440,762 


Value  of  Leather  manufactured  in  1860. 

New  England  States $16,333,871 

Middle  States 36,344,548 

Southern  States 4,074,496 

Western  States : 5,980,457 

Pacific  States 351,469 


Aggregate $63,084,751 


In  Massachusetts $10,354,056 


Value  of  manufactured  Clothing  in  1860. 

Whole  amount $64,002,975 

For  product  of  each  State  see  Preliminary  Report  of  Census  for  1860,  page  175. 

Value  of  paper  manufactured  in  1860. 

Amount $17,500,000 

Census  Report,  page  191. 

Value  of  Soap  and  Candles  manufactured  in  1860. 

Amount $7,000,000 

Census  Report,  page  191. 

Value  of  India-rubber  Goods  made  in  1860. 

Amount $5,729,900 

Census  Report,  page  185. 


FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC. 


59 


Discriminations  in  favor  of  the  Manufacturer. 

Articles  used  in  manufacturing,  with  duty  annexed,  under  the  Tariff  of  1862  : 

Rate  of  Duty. 

Cowhides,  raw 10  per  cent 

Emeralds 5  " 

Diamonds 5  " 

Goat-skins,  raw 10  " 

Dyewood,  extract  of 10  " 

Gems 5  " 

Hatter's  fur,  cleaned 15  " 

Lastings  for  shoes,  &c 10  " 

Sumach 10 

Hare  skins,  undressed 10 

Hides,  pickled 10 

"      raw 10 

"      salted , 10 

India-rubber,  unmanufactured 10  " 

"              milk  of 10  " 

Orchil 10  " 

Pig  tin 15  « 

Reindeer  skins,  raw 10  " 

Rubies 5  " 

Sheep-skms  in  the  wool 10  " 

Shoddy 20  " 

Silk 25  " 

Skins,  pickled 10  " 

"      dried 10  " 

"      fur,  raw  or  undressed 10  " 

"      kid,  undressed 10 

Soda  ash free. 

Muriatic  acid 10  " 

Nickel 10  " 

Rags  for  the  manufacture  of  paper free. 

Hair  of  alpaca  goats  and  of  other  animals  unknown,  costing   18 

cents  per  pound 5  " 

Wool,  where  the  value  is  less  than  18  cents  per  pound 5  " 

Wool,  in  the  skin 10  " 

This  last  duty  on  wool  admits  a  large  portion  of  the  raw  material  used 
by  the  woollen  manufacturer  substantially  free.  In  1863  there  was  im 
ported  into  the  United  States  71,882,128  pounds,  costing  812,290,630, 
averaging  less  than  17  cents  per  pound.  The  duty  therefore  on  the 
quantity  imported  was  about  8J  mills  per  pound.  The  wool  is  of  a  very 
fair  grade,  although  dirty.  It  comes  directly  in  competition  with  the 
American  wool-grower.  It  is  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  manufac 
turer  against  the  farmer.  And  upon  this  quantity  imported  the  manufac 
turer  charges  upon  the  consumer  the  enormous  bounty  which  the  com 
bined  tariff  and  paper-money  systems  enable  him  to  charge. 

I  have  shown  to  what  an  enormous  extent  labor  is  being  robbed  by 
the  unjust  discriminations  in  favor  of  the  privileged  few.  We  punish  the 
robbery  of  one  individual  by  another.  We  hang  those  who  take  human 
life  with  malice  prepense.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  a  Government  which 
robs  one  class  by  wholesale  to  gratify  the  avarice  of  another,  or  of  a 
Congress  which  takes  away  from  the  laboring  poor  the  "  means  whereby 
they  live,"  which  is  life  itself  to  them?  Even  political  economy,  rising 
out  of  its  unimpassioned  logic  into  the  higher  sphere  of  moral  science,  con 
templates  the  existence  of  such  outrages  only  to  denounce  them  with  in 


60  EIGHT  TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

dignation.  That  great  and  good  man  to  whom  I  have  referred,  and  from 
whose  lips  I  learned  the  lessons  of  political  economy  and  moral  science, 
Dr.  Wayland,  thus  analyzes,  reprehends,  and  pictures  the  consequences 
of  such  oppressive  legislation  as  that  now  proposed.  He  says : 

"  The  right  of  property  may  be  violated  by  society.  It  sometimes  happens  that  society 
or  government,  which  is  its  agent,  though  it  may  prevent  the  infliction  of  wrong  by 
individuals  upon  individuals,  is  itself  by  no  means  averse  to  inflicting  wrong  or  violating 
the  right  of  individuals.  This  is  done  where  Governments  seize  upon  the  property  of  in 
dividuals  by  mere  arbitrary  act,  a  form  of  tyranny  with  which  all  the  nations  of  Europe 
were  of  old  too  well  acquainted.  It  is  also  done  by  unjust  legislation  ;  that  is,  when  le 
gislators,  how  well  so  ever  chosen,  enact  unjust  laws  by  which  Ae  property  of  a  part  or 
of  the  whole  is  unjustly  taken  away,  or  unjustly  subjected  to  oppressive  taxation. 

"  Of  all  the  destructive  agencies  which  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  production,  by 
far  the  most  fatal  is  pubh'c  oppression.  It  drinks  up  the  spirit  of  a  people  by  inflicting 
wrong  through  means  of  an  agency  which  was  created  for  the  sole  purpose  of  preventing 
wrong,  and  which  was  intended  to  be  the  ultimate  and  faithful  refuge  of  the  friendless. 
When  the  antidote  to  evil  becomes  the  source  of  evil,  what  hope  for  man  is  left  ?  When 
society  itself  sets  the  example  of  peculation,  what  shall  prevent  the  individuals  of  the  so 
ciety  from  imitating  that  example  ?  Hence,  public  injustice  is  always  the  prolific  parent 
of  private  violence.  The  result  is  that  capital  emigrates,  production  ceases,  and  a  nation 
either  sinks  down  in  hopeless  despondence,  or  else  the  people,  harassed  beyond  endurance 
and  believing  that  their  condition  cannot  be  made  worse  by  any  change,  rush  into  all  the 
horrors  of  civil  war ;  the  social  elements  are  dissolved ;  the  sword  enters  every  house ; 
the  holiest  ties  which  bind  men  together  are  severed  ;  and  no  prophet  can  predict  at  the 
beginning  what  will  be  the  end." — Wayland's  Political  Economy,  p.  115. 

From  the  same  wise  source  I  have  been  taught  that  wars  may  keep 
the  most  enterprising  and  industrious  nation  always  poor ;  and  that  had 
Great  Britain  not  expended  in  wrars  the  incalculable  sums — almost  equal 
to  our  own  expenditures — which  the  past  hundred  years  might  otherwise 
have  added  to  her  operative  capital,  there  would  hardly  have  remained 
the  recollection  of  poverty  on  her  shores. 

"We  are  pursuing  her  career,  with  this  difference,  that  in  war  we  are 
our  own  enemies :  while  we  are  exhausting  our  foe  we  are  exhausting 
ourselves.  We  are  approaching  the  abysses  of  poverty,  therefore,  incon 
ceivably  faster  than  ever  England  did. 

No  scheme  was  ever  before  devised  in  this  or  any  other  country  so 
sure  to  accelerate  a  nation  to  its  downfall  as  the  present  and  proposed  tariff. 
No  scheme  ever  operated  so  thoroughly  and  rapidly  to  transfer  wealth 
from  the  pockets  of  the  many  to  those  of  the  few ;  from  the  hands  of 
labor  to  the  coffers  of  capital,  and  that,  too,  without  a  particle  of  con 
sideration.  If  this  system  shall  continue  in  operation  even  for  the  small 
period  of  five  years,  it  will  change  the  whole  face  of  society  in  this  coun 
try  ;  nor  can  I  fail  to  see  that  the  rich,  who  are  rioting  in  the  honest  gains 
of  the  poor  man,  may  share  with  the  poor  the  horrors  of  that  future.  If 
in  this  once  happy  and  prosperous  land,  poverty  rises  with  its  ghastly  mul 
titudes,  to  cut  the  throat  of  wealth  and  then  gash  itself  in  the  wild  im 
patience  of  its  own  hard  fate,  let  the  authors  of  this  war  and  its  unequal 
burdens  bear  the  crime  and  curse,  and  seek  such  mercy  as  Heaven  may 
grant  to  those  who  despoil  the  poor  for  the  gratification  of  their  unhal 
lowed  avarice.  Gradually  we  are  approaching  that  terrible  future.  This 
iniquitous  tariff  system  is  accomplishing  the  results  aimed  at  by  the  lead 
ers  of  old  Federalism — the  distinctions  of  classes,  the  subjugation  of  labor 


FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC.  61 

to  capital,  the  degradation  of  the  masses,  and  the  inauguration  of  a  con 
centrated  and  strong  Government. 

Hence,  said  I  not  truly  that  this  question  involved  the  problem  of  lib 
erty?  For  the  party  in  power,  in  addition  to  their  oppressive  taxation, 
strike  at  the  individuality  and  independence  of  the  States — the  great  dis 
tinctive  and  conservative  feature  of  our  national  system,  and  which  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
They  have  established  a  paper-money  banking  system,  under  the  control 
of  the  General  Government,  which  concentrates  power  in  the  Adminis 
tration  for  the  time  being,  and  gives  it  control  over  the  property  and  pe 
cuniary  interests  of  the  people.  They  expend  the  people's  money  without 
scruple  or  stint,  never  listening  to  the  suggestions  of  economy  nor  the 
admonitions  of  prudence,  nor  heeding  the  sufferings  which  follow  from 
the  burdens  of  taxation.  Here  they  vote  appropriations  for  every  con 
ceivable  project,  constitutional  or  not.  They  squander  the  public  lands, 
one  of  the  sources  of  revenue  which  can  help  to  relieve  the  people  from 
taxation,  on  every  conceivable  project  suggested  by  speculation.  They 
boldly  and  shamelessly  bring  the  power  of  the  national  Government,  both 
civil  and  military,  in  conflict  with  the  freedom  of  elections  and  the  liberty 
of  the  press.  They  virtually  suppress  these  great  franchises  of  the  Ameri 
can  people.  In  short,  the  party  in  power  has  instituted  a  crusade  of  per 
fidy  against  the  institutions  of  the  country  and  the  liberties  of  the  people, 
which  they  preach  with  exulting  and  shameless  audacity,  on  the  pretext 
of  preserving  the  Union. 

As  the  proper  concomitant  of  these  acts  we  have  this  tariff  system, 
which  is  to  be  thrust  on  the  patience  of  a  hitherto  long-forbearing  people. 
Will  they  meekly  bow  to  this  new  burden  ?  It  may  be  that  there  is  no 
retributive  justice  in  Heaven.  We  cannot,  however,  yet  believe  that  the 
almighty  Ruler  of  nations  has  abandoned  our  bleeding  country  to  the 
caprice  and  wickedness  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  in  power.  Despotic 
thrones,  supported  by  absolute  authority,  have  in  the  lapse  of  time  been 
shaken  and  have  fallen  before  the  wrath  of  the  Supreme  Avenger,  mani 
fested  through  the  awful  might  and  passion  of  outraged  peoples.  Such 
is  the  lesson  of  history.  Warned  by  such  examples,  the  men  now  in 
power  in  this  country  need  not  hope  to  escape  that  retributive  vengeance 
which  their  crimes  against  our  country  and  constitutional  liberty  so  justly 
merit. 


THE  IMMENSE  APPROPRIATIONS  SINCE  THE  WAR.— FUTURE  QUESTIONS  OF 

FINANCE. 

On  the  2d  day  of  March,  1865,  Mr.  Cox  introduced  a  measure  to  di 
vide  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  ;  and  briefly  pointed  out  the  im 
mense  issues  involved  in  the  financial  questions  which  the  war  had  pro 
duced  : 

In  relation  to  the  division  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  I 
desire  to  show  the  importance  and  immensity  of  the  labor  imposed  upon 


62  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

that  committee,  with  a  view  to  a  division  of  the  labor.  We  divide  the 
Ways  and  Means  into  three  committees.  The  Ways  and  Means  are  still 
preserved,  and  their  future  duty  is  to  provide  "  ways  and  means/'  that  is, 
raise  revenue  for  carrying  on  the  Government.  This  includes,  of  course, 
the  tariff,  the  internal  revenue,  the  loan  bills,  legal-tender  notes,  and  all 
other  matters  connected  with  supporting  the  credit  and  raising  money. 
The  amendments  confine  the  duty  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
simply  to  ways  and  means.  That  was  their  original  and  proper  sphere. 

The  proposed  Committee  on  Appropriations  have,  under  this  amend 
ment,  the  examination  of  the  estimates  of  the  Departments,  and  exclu 
sively  the  consideration  of  all  appropriations.  I  need  not  dilate  upon  the 
importance  of  having  hereafter  one  committee  to  investigate  with  nicest 
heed  all  matters  connected  with  economy.  The  tendency  of  the  time  is 
to  extravagance  in  private  and  in  public.  We  require  of  this  new  com 
mittee  their  whole  labor  in  the  restraint  of  extravagant  and  illegal  ap 
propriations. 

As  to  the  Committee  on  National  Banks  and  Currency,  that  is  not 
necessarily  connected  with  the  other  committees.  They  have  a  different 
province.  They  have  in  charge  all  the  banking  interests  of  the  country. 
These  interests  are  so  connected  by  the  relations  of  exchanges  and  cur 
rency  with  bank  issues  and  banking  capital  in  the  States,  that  it  is  as 
much  as  one  committee  can  well  do  to  study  these  questions  properly.  It 
is  utterly  impossible  in  the  present  condition  of  our  finances  that  one 
committee  can  do  all  this  labor,  and  do  it  as  well  as  these  interests  de 
mand.  The  Committee  on  Rules  do  not  by  this  measure  mean  to  cast  any 
reflection  upon  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  They  have  labored 
faithfully,  but  no  set  of  men,  however  enduring  their  patience,  studious 
their  habits,  or  gigantic  their  mental  grasp,  when  overburdened  with  the 
labor  incident  to  the  existing  monetary  condition  of  the  country  growing 
out  of  this  unparalleled  civil  strife,  can  do  this  labor  as  well  as  the  people 
have  a  right  to  expect  of  their  Representatives.  Therefore  we  propose  to 
divide  the  labor  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  We  would  not, 
and  could  not  if  we  would,  dim  the  lustre  of  their  names,  or  depreciate 
the  value  of  their  services.  I  think  that  they  have  been  well  selected  by 
the  Speaker.  They  do  not  need  any  compliment  from  me.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  mention  them  in  order  that  the  House  may  recall  their  con 
spicuous  ability,  their  indefatigable  industry,  their  abundant  information, 
their  legal  talents,  and  their  knowledge  of  finance. 

Each  member  of  the  Ways  and  Means  has  his  specialty — each 
Olympian  ;  and  as  Spenser  describes  the  gods, 

"  Each  easy  to  be  known  by  his  own  visnomie, 
But  Jove  above  them  all  by  his  great  looks  and  power  imperial." 

And  yet,  sir,  powerfully  as  the  committee  is  constituted,  even  their 
powers  of  endurance,  physical  and  mental,  are  not  adequate  to  the  great 
duty  which  has  been  imposed  by  the  emergencies  of  this  historic  time. 
It  is  an  old  adage,  that  "whoso  wanteth  rest  will  also  want  of  might;" 
and  even  an  Olympian  would  faint  and  flag  if  the  burden  of  Atlas  were 
not  relieved  by  the  broad  shoulders  of  Hercules. 

I  might  give  here  a  detailed  statement  of  the  amount  of  business 


FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC.  63 

thrown  upon  that  committee  since  the  commencement  of  the  war.  But  I 
prefer  to  append  it  to  my  remarks.  Whereas  before  the  war  we  scarcely 
expended  more  than  $70,000,000  a  year,  now,  during  the  five  sessions  of 
the  last  two  Congresses,  there  has  been  an  average  appropriation  of  at 
least  $800,000,000  per  session.  The  statement  which  I  hold  in  my  hand 
shows  that  during  the  first  and  extra  session  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Con 
gress  there  came  appropriation  bills  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  amounting  to  $226,691,457.99.  I  say  nothing  now  of  the  loan  and 
other  fiscal  bills  emanating  from  that  committee.  During  the  second  session 
of  that  Congress  bills  were  reported  to  the  amount  of  $883,029,987.14  ; 
and  during  the  last  session  of  that  Congress  $972,827,829.90.  During 
the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  appropriation  bills  were 
reported  amounting  to  $788,124,021.94,  and  during  the  present  session  I 
suppose  it  would  be  a  fair  estimate  to  take  the  appropriations  of  the  last 
session  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress,  say  $900,000,000  ! 

These  are  appropriation  bills  alone.  They  are  stupendous,  and  but 
poorly  symbolize  the  immense  labors  which  the  internal  revenue,  tariff, 
and  loan  bills  imposed  on  the  committee.  Neither  do  they  represent  the 
actual  appropriations  ;  for  the  House  has  frequently  increased  these  bills 
enormously.  The  aggregate  of  these  appropriation  bills  reaches  the 
astounding  amount  of  $3,770,673,296.97,  or  nearly  four  thousand  million 
dollars  !  For  the  army  alone  the  appropriation  bills  during  the  past  five 
sessions  are  over  three  thousand  millions !  And  this  business  of  appro 
priations  is  perhaps  not  one  half  of  the  labor  of  the  committee.  There 
are  various  and  important  matters  upon  which  they  act,  but  upon  which 
they  never  report.  Their  duties  comprehend  all  the  varied  interests  of 
the  United  States  ;  every  element  and  branch  of  industry,  and  every  dollar 
or  dime  of  value.  They  are  connected  with  taxation,  tariffs,  banking, 
loan  bills,  and  ramify  to  every  fibre  of  the  body-politic.  All  the  springs 
of  wealth  and  labor  are  more  or  less  influenced  by  the  action  of  this 
committee.  Their  responsibility  is  immense,  and  their  control  almost 
imperial  over  the  necessities,  comforts,  homes,  hopes,  and  destinies  of  the 
people.  All  the  values  of  the  United  States,  which  in  the  census  of  1860 
(page  194)  amount  to  nearly  seventeen  thousand  million  dollars,  or,  to  be 
exact,  $16,159,616,068,  are  affected  by  the  action  of  that  committee,  even 
before  their  action  is  approved  by  the  House.  Those  values  fluctuate 
whenever  the  head  of  the  Ways  and  Means  rises  in  his  place  and  proposes 
a  measure.  The  price  of  every  article  we  use  trembles  when  he  proposes 
a  gold  bill,  or  a  loan  bill,  or  any  bill  to  tax  directly  or  indirectly.  In  ten 
years  these  values  increased  at  the  rate  of  more  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  per  cent.,  adding  in  one  decade  $8,925,481,011  to  our  real 
and  personal  property.  Since  this  war  began  these  values  have  been 
drawn  upon  to  give  credit  and  cash  to  the  Government,  and  so  drawn 
upon  that  one-half  of  the  increase  and  one-fourth  of  all  of  these  values  are 
already  practically  under  mortgage.  Can  one  committee  properly  pass 
upon  the  immense  interests  thus  bound  up,  and  reaching  down  to  other 
generations  ?  Not  only  every  rood  of  land  has  now  to  sustain  its  living 
occupant,  but  it  has  to  sustain  soldiers  in  the  field  and  sailors  on  the  sea, 
who  are  not  producing,  but  destroying,  what  is  wrought  from  the  soil. 
Nay,  more,  it  has  to  pay  its  tribute  to  the  creditor  of  the  nation,  not  only 


64  EIGHT   TEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

in  the  present,  but  to  the  inheritor  of  our  national  bonds.  The  laborer 
who  works  now  his  ten  hours  per  diem,  must  work  four  hours  more  for 
the  creditor  of  the  nation.  Thus  is  our  nation  being  overburdened  by  the 
legislation  of  to-day ;  burdened  for  the  present  and  for  the  future.  Is  it 
not  best  to  give  every  facility  for  the  crystallization  of  the  wisest  financial 
policy  ?  And  does  not  this  measure  assume  greater  importance  because 
of  its  far-reaching  effects  upon  our  finances  and  our  future  ?  "Without 
discussing  the  wisdom  of  our  present  system  of  finance,  is  it  not  important, 
in  this  day  when  these  debts  are  growing,  to  have  the  system  as  nearly 
safe  and  just  as  possible?  Have  we  not  already,  like  other  nations, 
instead  of  .providing  for  the  principal,  provided  only  for  the  interest  of 
these  great  debts  ?  What  follows  ?  That  money  borrowed,  being  obtained 
without  sweat  or  sacrifice,  is  spent  lightly,  without  economy  or  care. 
Dr.  Arnold  well  says,  that  "  a  revenue  raised  at  the  expense  of  posterity 
is  sure  to  be  squandered  wastefully.  Waste  begets  want,  and  the  sums 
raised  by  loans  will  commonly  be  large."  If  that  be  true,  is  it  not  a  cogent 
reason  for  the  separation  of  the  old  committee  which  borrows  from  the 
committee  which  pays  ?  One  will  be  a  veto  on  the  other  ;  and  something 
of  economy  may  be  gained,  and  something  of  extravagance  restrained. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  this  change'  of  our  rules 
in  its  details.  But  is  there  not  a  necessity  for  some  change  ?  Is  it  not 
wise  to  divide  such  labors  as  have  been  described?  Who  wishes  to 
overwork  any  set  of  gentlemen  in  this  or  any  future  Congress  ?  There 
are  gentlemen  who  will  be  in  the  next  Congress  when  this  change  shall 
take  effect,  who  will  be  glad  to  share  with  the  old  committee  the 
solution  of  these  financial  problems.  These  problems  are  soon  to 
agitate  the  country  above  all  other  questions.  Peace  and  war  depend 
upon  them.  They  rise  higher  than  peace  or  war.  They  rise  higher 
than  the  freedom  and  slavery  of  the  blacks.  Perpetual  and  enor 
mous  debt  is  slavery  for  body  and  mind.  Hence  the  interests  con 
nected  with  these  economical  questions  are  of  all  questions  those  most 
momentous  for  the  future.  Parties,  statesmanship,  union,  stability,  all 
depend  upon  the  manner  in  which  these  questions  are  dealt  with.  Shall 
the  tariff  be  one  of  bounty  or  of  revenue  only  ?  Shall  a  Chinese  policy 
ward  off  all  foreign  interchange  from  our  shores  ?  Or  shall  protection,  so 
long  abandoned  by  the  scientific  and  practical  men  of  our  generation,  be 
again  introduced  into  our  economy?  Shall  taxes  be  levied  equally  on  the 
rich  and  poor?  Shall  the  funded  debt  of  this  nation  be  paid  to  the  few 
in  gold  by  the  sweat  of  the  many?  Shall  labor  be  held  in  thrall  and 
branded  as  the  serf  of  capital?  Shall  one  interest  or  section  be  pam 
pered  at  the  expense  and  poverty  of  another?  Shall  we  forever  bury 
and  keep  buried  the  symmetric  system  of  a  gold  and  silver  currency,  as 
the  standard  of  the  Constitution  and  of  nature,  under  the  lush  growth  of 
greenbacks  and  paper  promises?  When  this  war  shall  end,  and  the 
present  inflation  lias  collapsed;  when  the  "stocks  on  hand"  of  mer 
chant  and  capitalist  shall  have  suffered  in  the  wreck  of  credit  and  crash 
of  paper  money;  when  "  settling  day"  shall  come  and  the  meretricious 
splendors  of  fictitious  wealth  shall  fade  ;  when  the  diamonds  of  to-day 
shall  become  the  paste  of  to-morrow ;  when  speculation  shall  no  longer 
flaunt  its  upstart  pretension  in  the  face  of  merit  and  modesty ;  when  a 


FINANCES,    TARIFFS,    ETC.  65 

common  ruin  shall  ingulf  both  poor  and  rich ;  when  the  gilded  vessel 
gliding  so  smoothly  over  this  smooth  summer  sea  of  delusive  prosperity 
shall  meet  the  "  whirlwind's  sweepy  sway ;"  then  who  will  direct  the 
whirlwind  and  who  temper  the  storm  ?  Why  not  now,  in  the  present,  look 
these  dangers  in  the  face,  and  by  prescience  avert  them?  As  an  adjunct 
in  this  work,  let  these  finance  committees  have  time  and  opportunity  to 
do  their  work,  and  then  it  may  be  well  done.  This  can  only  be  done  by 
a  division  of  their  labor  as  proposed  by  this  amendment.  Whichever 
party  deals  by  these  questions  most  nearly  in  the  interests  of  labor — the 
procreant  source  of  all  wealth  and  taxes — that  party  will  have  and  keep 
the  ascendency  in  the  political  control  of  the  Government. 
5 


n. 

SEDITION  IN  THE  NORTH. 

IMPARTIAL  history  will  not  fail  to  record  the  efforts  and  doctrines  of 
those  who  held  to  the  supremacy  of  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution. 
Although  a  resuscitation  of  such  discussions  may  seem  inappropriate,  they 
have  their  lessons.  I  insert  a  series  of  speeches,  mostly  in  the  ad  homi- 
nem  vein,  upon  the  lawlessness  engendered  at  the  North.  Such  conduct 
provoked  its  like.  Some  of  those  speeches  have  the  dramatic  form  of 
quick  and  earnest  colloquy.  The  sentiment  which  originally  antagonized 
with  the  fugitive  slave  law,  never  flagged  till  its  repeal  in  1864.  These 
speeches  show  the  progress  of  the  Republican  party  from  the  time  it  gave 
a  faint  and  echoless  voice  against  the  Federal  statutes  as  to  slavery,  until 
its  antagonism  became  defiant  and  successful. 

The  first  running  debate,  in  which  these  tendencies  of  the  Republican 
leaders  were  developed,  was  on  the  occasion  of  an  attack  by  Mr.  GIDDINGS, 
on  the  15th  of  January,  1859,  on  the  Democratic  party  for  its  complicity 
with  the  slave  trade.  In  this  debate  he  called  out  his  younger  colleague, 
whom  he  had  accused  of  "  skulking  behind  the  bush."  I  pressed  him  ou 
the  question  of  negro  suffrage  in  return.  He  was  not  ready  to  answer 
then,  as  he  expected  to  be  a  candidate  for  Governor.  Avoiding  and  still 
avoiding  the  questions  propounded  as  to  allowing  negroes  to  vote,  the  col 
loquy  ended  thus : 

Mr.  Cox.  Answer  the  question,  sir.  The  gentleman  talked  about  my 
hiding  under  the  bush.  Let  him  come  out,  if  he  dare,  from  his  covert. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  GIDDINGS.  I  say  that  I  do  not  interfere  in  this  question  as  to 
superiority  between  the  Democrats  and  the  negroes. 

Mr.  Cox.  He  talk  of  his  Democratic  colleague  skulking  under  the 
bush !  He  dare  not  answer  my  question.  I  will  not  press  the  gentle 
man  further.  My  respect  for  him  will  not  allow  me  to  put  him  to  the 
torture  further.  He  never  could  get  the  nomination  for  the  governorship 
if  he  had  answered  my  question  categorically  ;  and  I  am  anxious  he  should 
be  nominated.  [Laughter.] 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  67 

* 

Mr.  GIDDINGS.  So  far  as  the  Democratic  party  is  concerned,  I  repeat 
that  I  judge  the  Africans  by  their  intelligence  and  virtue.  I  do  not  enter 
into  the  quarrel  between  them  with  the  Republicans.  I  do  not  mean  to 
put  them  on  an  equality  with  the  Republicans. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  does  not  answer  my  question.  I  therefore 
will  not  press  him  further.  All  that  I  wished  was  to  put  the  Democratic 
party  right  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  slavery ;  and  they  are  right  on  it, 
being  neither  an  anti-slavery  nor  a  pro-slavery  party.  The  gentleman  may 
go  on  and  get  the  nomination  for  the  governorship,  and  make  his  alliance, 
if  he  can,  in  northern  and  southern  Ohio,  and  we  will  meet  him  at 
Philippi. 

It  is  enough  to  say  that  Mr.  GIDDINGS  never  became  a  candidate  for 
Governor.  He  was  lectured  by  the  Anti-Slavery  Standard  for  not  being 
more  courageous  in  this  debate  for  the  right  of  the  negro  to  vote.  But 
he  ceased  not  until  his  decease  to  advocate  his  radical  notions.  He  was 
not  returned  to  the  36th  Congress.  Subsequently,  on  the  9th  of  February, 
1861,  Mr.  Cox  had  another  running  debate  with  the  successor  of  Mr. 
GIDDIXGS,  in  which  (far  too  harshly)  he  characterized  the  ruinous  effect 
of  Mr.  GEDDINGS'S  political  views.  This  debate  is  thus  reported : 


NORTHERN   NULLIFIERS. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  was  surprised  that  my  colleague  from  the  Ashtabula 
district,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  attack  upon  my  colleague  (Governor 
CORWIN),  should  have  attacked  me.  Why  he  did  so,  I  know  not ;  unless 
it  be  from  the  fact  that  I  asked  him  a  question  in  explanation  of  his  argu 
ment  about  incendiary  publications  to  provoke  insurrection.  I  asked  him 
the  question,  whether  or  not  he  was  in  favor  of  suppressing  all  such  pub 
lications  as  the  Helper  book  and  Theodore  Parker's  programme,  published 
in  the  Tribune,  for  the  robbery  and  murder  of  masters  by  their  slaves  to 
obtain  their  freedom?  The  gentleman  did  not  answer  the  question.  He 
evaded  it ;  for  he  knew  that  he  represented  a  constituency  who  are  con 
tinually  preaching  and  publishing  that  very  sedition  of  which  my  colleague 
["Mr.  CORWIN]  complained,  and  of  which  he  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  is  the  de 
fender,  and  of  which  John  Brown  was  the  exemplar.  The  gentleman 
knew,  when  he  covered  his  attack  upon  Governor  CORWIN  by  his  attack 
upon  me,  that  he  represented  some  of  the  very  men  who  had  been  engaged 
in  raids  upon  their  neighbors'  lives  and  property.  I  cannot,  sir,  fail  to 
remember  that  his  sensibility  about  certain  disclosures  that  have  transpired 
in  relation  to  the  Republican  executive  of  Ohio,  in  refusing  to  deliver  to 
Virginia  such  miscreants,  is  no  doubt  caused  by  the  fact  that  some  of  the 
renegades  and  rascals  of  John  Brown's  conspiracy  had  a  protecting  aegis 
in  the  conspiring  treason  of  his  own  district.  I  state  these  facts  openly, 
and  in  my  place,  because  they  are  wrongs,  and  with  a  view  to  their  rem 
edy  by  proper  measures.  But,  sir,  I  wanted  to  call  attention  especially  to 
an  ungenerous  attack  upon  myself.  I  did  not  expect  it  from  the  gentle 
man.  He  said  I  was  always  very  busy  in  the  House  furnishing  fads — yes, 


68  EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

A 

fads,  sir — for  Southern  members  to  attack  the  North  here.  I  would  like 
him  to  name  the  Southern  man  to  whom  I  furnished  facts,  in  the  manner 
or  for  the  purpose  stated.  Name  him,  if  you  can !  I  will  pause  for  you 
to  name  one. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  think  that  when  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  Mr. 
LEAKE,  was  discussing  the  conduct  of  Governor  Dennison — 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  about  to  refer  to  that.  I  asked  the  privi 
lege  cf  Governor  LEAKE  to  take  the  floor  ;  and  in  my  place  I  gave  the 
facts  to  the  House  and  the  country,  and  not  to  Governor  LEAKE  ;  I  gave 
them  with  a  view  to  the  proper  remedy,  and  from  no  other  motive.  I 
meet  these  issues  openly,  here  and  elsewhere.  I  stand  here  with  a  duty 
to  the  whole  country.  I  speak  not  alone  for  my  own  district  and  my 
own  State.  But  when  I  have  information  that  the  Constitution  and  laws 
have  been  violated  anywhere,  and  that  gross  wrongs  have  been  done  to 
our  own  mother  State  of  Virginia  and  our  own  sister  State  of  Kentucky, 
I  will  never  hesitate,  both  here  and  at  home,  to  denounce  the  unfaithful 
men,  even  though  they  do  disgrace  the  State  of  Ohio.  [Applause  in  the 
galleries.]  The  gentleman  undertakes  to  acknowledge  that  I  am  a  Union 
man.  What  an  admission  to  come  from  the  successor  of  Joshua  R. 
Giddings  !  [Renewed  applause.]  How  refreshing  from  a  man  like  my 
colleague,  who  was  nominated  and  elected  because  he  was  more  radical 
than  Mr.  Giddings  himself!  Mr.  Giddings  could  teach  insurrection. 
We  knowT  how  he  taught  it  here  for  twenty  years.  He  could  organize 
conspiracies  in  the  gentleman's  district,  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  the 
officers  of  the  law  and  defeating  its  execution — not  stopping  at  murder  to 
accomplish  such  designs.  He  could  advise  the  "  shooting  down  as  pirates" 
of  officers  engaged  in  executing  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  If  Mr. 
Giddings,  who  had  no  scruples  as  to  murder  in  defeating  the  law,  was  left 
at  home,  how  far  would  the  gentleman  go,  who  superseded  Mr.  Giddings, 
because  he  was  more  ultra  and  reliable  than  Mr.  Giddings  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  Toward  my  colleague,  personally,  I  entertain  no 
other  feeling  than  that  of  kindness.  Against  his  political  acts  I  have  had, 
and  now  have,  some  little  criticism  to  make  ;  because,  on  every  possible 
occasion  that  he  could  get  the  ear  of  this  House,  he  has  seen  fit  to  de 
nounce  my  constituents  as  enemies  to  the  Union,  and  as  abettors  of  the 
raid  of  John  Brown.  He  even  brought  against  the  judges  of  the  State 
the  charge  of  singing  the  Marseillaise  on  the  bench  ;  and  also  against  the 
citizens  of  the  Western  Reserve  the  same  charge  of  singing  the  same 
patriotic  song — through  their  noses.  [Laughter.] 

The  gentleman  has  made  an  attack  upon  Mr.  Giddings.  He  needs  no 
defence  from  me.  His  acts  in  this  House  for  twenty  years  will  stand  the 
test  of  criticism  now  and  hereafter.  Attacks  are  frequently  made  upon 
him  by  members  here  ;  and  I  will  only  say,  that  his  name  will  be  remem 
bered  with  gratitude  when  the  names  of  those  who  assail  him  are  for 
gotten.  I  deny  that  he  has  countenanced  insurrection  on  this  floor  or 
elsewhere. 

Now,  this  is  all  that  I  desired  to  say.  I  am  willing  that  my  constit 
uents  shall  stand  by  their  record,  shall  stand  by  their  position.  I  will 
stand  by  mine.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  Union  as  it  is,  and  as  our  fathers 
gave  it  to  us  ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  preserved  by  sacrificing  those 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  69 

very  principles  on  which  it  is  based.  If  the  cause  of  liberty  is  to  be 
betrayed  and  crucified  in  the  year  of  grace  1861,  I  trust  that  there  will 
not  be  found  among  its  apostles  a  betrayer  and  crucifier. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  last  remark  of  the  gentleman  shows  just  where  he  is. 
He  says  he  is  for  the  Union,  but  with  an  "if  and  an  and  ;"  qualifying  his 
remark  with  the  phrase  that  he  is  only  for  the  Union,  "if  liberty  be  not 
crucified."  He  knows,  or  ought  to  know,  that  the  Union  is  the  only 
shield  of  liberty.  But  he  means,  if  he  means  any  thing,  that,  if  there  be 
power  in  the  Government  to  crush  out  slavery,  either  in  the  Territories 
or  in  States,  then  he  is  for  the  Union ;  but  he  is  not  for  it,  if  it  does  not 
give  that  power.  He  is  not  for  it,  unless  he  can  make  it  the  instrument 
of  his  fanaticism.  I  say  that  I  am  for  the  Union,  without  qualification 
or  condition,  now  and  all  the  time.  I  will  do  what  the  gentleman  will 
not — yield  and  compromise  much  for  its  salvation.  The  gentleman  said 
in  his  speech  a  while  ago,  that  I  would  be  for  the  Union  provided  the 
Republican  party  should  be  crushed  out.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Speaker, 
but  that  it  may  be  necessary  to  roll  the  Juggernaut  car  over  this  Repub 
lican  party  to  save  the  Union  ;  but  I  would  even  be  willing  to  give  a 
lease  of  power  for  fifty  years  to  that  party,  if  I  could  see  that  it  would 
conduct  the  Government  on  principles  like  those  of  my  colleague  (Mr. 
CORWIN),  which  would  preserve  the  Union.  I  would  be  willing  to  sur 
render  party  supremacy,  if  thereby  we  could  keep  the  old  stars  and  stripes 
floating  over  the  national  Congress.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  are  various  classes  of  Republicans.  The  gentle 
man  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  belongs  to  the  worst  of  the  Abolition  wing  ;  and  well 
may  he  defend  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Giddings.  That  godless  old  man, 
after  spending  a  public  life  devoted  to  hate,  ill  will,  and  sedition,  was 
retired  because  he  did  one  thing  that  was  right — voted  for  the  Crittenden- 
Montgomery  bill.  He  has  since  been  making  up  for  his  loss  of  office  by 
the  virulence  of  his  spleen  and  the  outlawry  of  his  conduct.  He  has,  as 
I  have  once  shown  here,  instigated  servile  insurrections  ;  and  now,  at  the 
end  of  a  misspent  life,  which  is  scarcely  silvered  by  a  ray  of  benignity,  he 
finds,  as  the  consequence  of  his  teaching  and  conduct,  a  disrupted  Union, 
a  terrified  people,  and  the  prospect  of  unending  hate  and  bloody  strife. 
If  there  was  mercy  for  the  thief  upon  the  cross,  there  may  be  mercy  for 
him.  God  grant  him  repentance  before  he  fills  his  dishonored  grave ! 
But  what  a  life  he  has  lived  !  He  talked  the  language  of  love  to  the  black 
race  only  to  hide  his  hate  for  the  whife  race  who  people  our  southern 
States.  He  paraded  humanitarian  phrases,  and  took  upon  his  profane  lips 
the  name  of  God,  only  to  cloak  his  malice  and  sanctify  his  hate.  He  has 
had,  in  specific  wickedness,  many  rivals  ;  but  if  we  measure  men's  guilt 
by  the  objects  upon  which  they  are  bent,  who  can  tell  the  magnitude  of 
that  portentous  crime  which  causelessly  dismembers  to  destroy  the  Amer 
ican  Republic?  As  such  a  Republic  has  no  parallel,  so  such  a  criminal 
has  no  peer.  But  my  colleague  praises  him  and  commends  him  to  im 
mortal  honor  !  Nero  had  a  friend,  who  placed  immortelles  upon  his  tomb, 
and  the  worst  fiends  of  the  French  revolution  had  their  defenders  after 
death ;  but  were  this  old  man  now  dead,  and  thus  powerless  in  his  party 
at  home,  even  my  colleague  would  shrink  from  the  task  of  embalming  his 
bad  memory.  It  will,  after  death,  only  be  remembered  to  be  execrated. 


TO  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

His  late  letters  to  my  colleague  [Mr.  CORWIN]  and  his  compatriot,  Mr. 
EWTNG,  show  that  age,  which  so  often  reclaims  the  most  reprobate  soul, 
has  not  withered — nor  custom,  which  so  often  tires  of  its  baleful  work, 
has  not  staled — the  infinite  variety  of  his  malice  and  his  madness.  His 
tory,  in  its  record  of  this  great  anti-slavery  sedition  of  the  North,  and  the 
consequent  revolution  in  the  South,  will  only  picture  the  whiteness  of  his 
hair,  to  contrast  it  with  the  blackness  of  that  purpose,  which  for  years 
and  years  has  pursued  a  crusade  whose  terrible  consummation  is  upon  us, 
in  the  crumbling  away  of  our  States  and  the  destruction  of  their  unity. 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  CORWIN]  belongs  to  a  different  class 
of  Republicans.  He  is  of  that  class  with  which  I  most  agree  in  these 
matters  of  conciliation  for  the  Union.  He  has  reported  a  proposition  in 
respect  to  the  return  of  fugitives  from  justice,  which  was  in  response  to  a 
resolution  that  I  offered  some  time  ago,  and  which  is  called  for  by  a 
resolution  offered  within  a  few  days  by  a  leading  Republican  member  of 
the  Ohio  Legislature.  I  am  in  favor  of  that  measure  of  the  Committee  of 
Thirty-three.  But  my  coUeague  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  attacks  it.  Why?  Be 
cause  the  United  States  Judges,  and  not  a  Republican  Governor,  will  then 
be  in  the  position  to  take  the  John  Browns  and  Oliver  Browns  and  Mer- 
riams  out  of  his  district,  so  that  he  cannot  thereafter  get  their  votes. 

There  are  several  classes  of  Republicans.  There  is  a  pious  class ; 
there  is  a  cursing  class ;  there  is  a  fighting  class  ;  and  there  is  a  patriotic 
class.  The  gentleman  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  belongs  to  the  pious  class ; 
they  believe  all  they  say.  The  doughty  member  from  Ohio  [Mr.  ASH 
LEY] — who  interfered  so  ungenerously  to  prevent  me  from  replying — 
belongs  to  the  cursing  class.  They  do  not  believe  any  thing,  but  profess 
just  enough  to  get  them  into  Congress.  The  fighting  class  are  very 
brave — in  time  of  peace.  I  will  not  name  those  who  belong  to  this  class. 
Then  there  is  another  class,  composed  of  those  who  have  a  leaven  of 
patriotic  feeling.  My  colleagues  [Messrs.  CORWIN  and  STANTON]  be 
long  to  this  latter  class.  But  they  have  not  the  confidence  of  the  body  of 
their  party  in  Ohio.  [A  voice  :  "  How  do  you  know  that?"]  How  do 
I  know  it !  Because  your  party  in  convention,  last  year  and  the  year  be 
fore,  passed  resolutions  almost  unanimously,  that  the  fugitive  slave  law 
was  unconstitutional,  and  should  not  be  executed.  Can  you  agree  to  that? 

Mr.  STANTON.  The  gentleman  does  not  state  the  resolution  correctly. 
Every  member  of  the  committee  that  reported  it  agreed  to  that  resolution. 

Mr.  Cox.  1  could  state  the  very  words  of  it,  if  it  were  necessary ; 
and  I  have  stated  the  meaning  and  the  substance  of  it.  It  declared  that 
the  fugitive  slave  law  was  "  subversive  of  both  the  rights  of  the  States 
and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  was  contrary  to  the  plainest  duties  of 
humanity  and  justice,  and  abhorrent  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  civilized 
world."  Is  the  gentleman  in  favor  of  executing  an  outrage  upon  the  civil 
ized  world?  [Laughter.]  Yes,  sir,  his  whole  party  are  committed  to 
the  demoralization  of  the  Federal  authority,  not  only  by  such  resolutions, 
but  by  judicial  decision.  Why,  the  gentleman  himself  [Mr.  STANTON] 
voted  for  the  chief  justice  of  his  State  ;  and  he  knew,  and  they  all  knew, 
that  when  he  was  nominated  and  elected,  the  issue  was  made  upon  that 
judge's  decision,  overruling  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  fugitive  slave  law. 


SEDITION   IN  THE   NORTH.  71 

Here  is  where  disunion  begins.  It  begins  at  home,  sir ;  in  your  own 
State  and  in  your  own  party  and  in  your  own  breast.  Your  party  re- 
elected  a  man  because  he  had  nullified  the  Constitution ;  because  he 
had  broken  the  oath  which  he  had  taken  before  God,  to  support  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  The  whole  party  in  that  vote  (including 
my  colleagues)  were  guilty  of  moral  treason.  [Applause  in  the  galler 
ies.] 

Mr.  ST ANTON.  I  should  like  very  much  to  have  about  five  minutes  to 
reply  to  my  colleague.  [Cries  of  "  Go  on  !  "  and  "  Object !  "] 

Mr.  BURNETT.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  gentleman  going  on  for  five 
minutes,  if  his  colleague  [Mr.  Cox]  may  have  another  five  minutes  in  re 
ply.  I  want  to  see  a  fair  fight,  if  this  thing  is  to  go  on.  [Cries  of 
"  Agreed !"] 

Mr.  SICKLES.  I  desire  to  know,  before  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  pro 
ceeds  with  his  remarks,  whether  it  is  understood  that  his  colleague  in 
front  of  me  [Mr.  Cox]  is  to  have  the  right  to  reply. 

It  being  "  agreed "  that  Mr.  Cox  should  respond,  Mr.  Stanton  was 
allowed  to  speak. 

Mr.  STANTON.  I  do  not  care  myself,  personally,  any  thing  about  the 
remarks  of  my  colleague  ;  but  for  the  sake  of  the  truth  of  history,  and  to 
prevent  misrepresentation  of  the  party  to  which  I  belong,  I  desire  to  cor 
rect  what  has  been  so  often  said  here,  as  to  myself  and  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  of  Thirty-three  not  being  representative  men  of  the  Repub 
lican  party. 

Now,  sir,  I  was  a  member  of  the  committee  that  reported  the  resolu 
tion  to  which  my  colleague  has  so  frequently  referred  in  debate  upon  this 
floor.  I  concurred  in  that  resolution  then,  and  I  concur  in  it  to-day.  I 
hold  a  fugitive  slave  law  which  authorizes  the  capture  of  freemen  without 
the  slightest  chance  of  trial,  without  a  hearing  before  any  court  or  any 
officer  known  to  the  law,  to  be  an  outrage  upon  civilization.  Now,  Mr. 
Speaker,  when  we  denounced  that  fugitive  slave  law,  we  did  not  recognize 
the  right  of  each  man,  upon  his  own  responsibility,  to  nullify  and  resist 
its  execution  or  to  question  its  constitutionality.  We  understand  perfectly 
well  that  that  question  is  to  be  tested  by  the  judicial  tribunals  ;  and  I  hold 
it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  good  citizen  to  acquiesce  in  the  judgment  of 
such  tribunal,  whatever  it  may  be,  until  it  shall  be  reversed  by  a  higher 
tribunal.  That  is  the  position  of  the  Republican  party  of  Ohio.  But,  sir, 
I  am  told  that  I  voted  for  a  judge  who  held  this  fugitive  slave  law  to  be 
unconstitutional.  I  certainly  did  so  vote,  and  I  certainly  shall  always 
vote  for  a  judge  with  strict  reference  to  his  integrity  and  his  capacity, 
without  considering  the  question  as  to  whether  I  concur  with  him  upon 
every  decision  he  makes  upon  the  bench  or  not. 

Mr.  Cox.  My  colleague  from  Ohio  [Mr.  STANTON]  steps  in  advance 
of  my  colleague  from  the  Ashtabula  district  [Mr.  HUTCHINS],  to  shield 
him. 

Mr.  STANTON.     Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir  ;  for  he  knows  very  well  he  is  not  as  obnoxious,  in 
the  respect  to  which  I  referred,  as  the  gentleman  from  the  Ashtabula  dis- 


72  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

trict.  The  gentleman  makes  a  sort  of  defence  for  his  support  of  Judge 
Brinkerhoff.  Now,  sir,  I  have  some  respect  for  the  gentleman  from  the 
Ashtabula  district  [Mr.  HUTCHINS],  because  he  believes  what  he  says,  and 
will  stand  up,  under  all  circumstances,  for  the  doctrines  of  his  party.  He 
defends  Judge  Brinkerhoff  even  in  respect  to  the  nullification  of  the  fugi 
tive  slave  law  ;  but  the  other  gentleman  from  Ohio  says,  "  Oh,  no  !  I  do 
not  defend  Judge  BrinkerhofFs  nullification  doctrine,  but  I  voted  for  him, 
because  I  am  for  an  independent  judiciary."  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  take 
issue  with  him  upon  that  point  as  to  the  independence  of  the  judiciary ; 
but  I  do  take  issue  with  him  when  he  claims  that  such  independence 
should  be  sustained  when  it  becomes  nullification.  It  may  become  those 
who  think  like  myself,  but  it  does  not  become  gentlemen  who  voted  for 
this  judge,  to  find  fault  with  southern  men  because  they  have  nullified  the 
Federal  authority,  when,  by  the  confession  of  my  colleague  before  the 
nation  to-day,  he,  and  two  hundred  and  twelve  thousand  other  Ohio  Re 
publicans,  voted  for  a  chief  justice  of  that  State  on  the  question  being 
made  whether  or  not  the  Constitution  of  the  country  should  stand.  He 
voted  by  his  own  confession  for  a  judge  who  had,  in  so  far  as  he  could, 
nullified  that  Constitution. 

That  judge  had  decided  that  "  the  decision  of  the  United  States  Court 
on  these  questions  should  settle  nothing ; "  and  my  colleague  voted  for 
him.  He  declared  u  against  the  omnipotence  of  the  Federal  power"  with 
respect  to  these  very  questions  fixed  in  the  Constitution ;  and  my  col 
league  justified  that  judge  by  his  vote,  by  his  action,  and  by  the  action  of 
his  party.  He  did  this  on  the  direct  issue  being  made  and  understood, 
from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other.  Though  he  did  not  agree  with 
his  decision,  yet  he  sustained  the  unjust  judge.  I  would  also  vote  for  a 
judge,  though  I  differed  from  him  on  a  matter  involving  dollars,  or  a 
horse,  or  a  contract,  or  something  of  that  nature  ;  but  I  will  pause  when 
his  decision  is  subversive  of  order,  law,  authority,  and  the  Constitution. 
When  the  Constitution  of  the  country  is  at  stake ;  when  southern  States 
are  convulsed  by  the  action  of  northern  States,  violative  of  confederative 
faith  ;  when  this  very  question  is  mooted  from  one  end  of  the  country  to 
the  other  ;  then,  for  a  great  party  to  meet  in  convention,  repudiate  a  law 
of  Congress  declared  to  be  constitutional  by  the  supreme  judicial  tribunal, 
and  justify  by  nominating  the  man  who  had  nullified  it,  is  it  not  mon 
strous  ?  Then  for  such  men  to  come  here  and  claim  to  support  the  Con 
stitution  and  the  Union !  Why,  sir,  with  some  it  may  be  ignorance ; 
with  others  inconsistency  ;  with  the  rest  hypocrisy  ;  but  with  all,  treason  ! 
I  shall  leave  to  my  colleagues  their  choice  of  these  classifications.  What 
have  they  done  but  broken  down  the  Constitution  by  insidious  sapping  and 
mining — almost  as  bad,  if  not  worse,  than  the  bold,  open,  rebellious  breaches 
of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  such  as  we  unhappily  see  in  our  extreme 
southern  States. 

REPLY  TO  MR.  CORWIN. REVOLUTIONARY  ABOLITIONISM. 

.  On  the  8th  of  December,  1859,  Mr.  Cox  exposed  all  the  seditious  acts 
of  the  Republicans,  compelled  to  do  so  as  a  vindication  of  the  people  of 
his  State,  who  then  discountenanced  such  conduct.  This  speech  was 


SEDITION   EST  THE   NOKTII.  73 

made  during  the  contest  for  Speaker,  when  Mr.  John  Sherman  was  a 
candidate,  and  when  Ohio  politics  were  in  question. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  wish  that  some  other  member  from  the  State  from  which  I 
come,  would  answer  the  very  facetious  and  sophistical  argument  of  my 
colleague  from  the  district  near  my  own  [Mr.  CORWIN].  I  do  not  think, 
sir,  that  he  differs  so  much  from  the  Democratic  party  as  perhaps  his 
position  here  might  lead  us  to  believe.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  the 
masses  of  the  Republican  party  in  the  State  of  Ohio  approve  of  his  senti 
ments  as  here  enunciated.  I  have  always  thought  in  my  own  mind,  that 
the  distinguished  gentleman — and  I  have  always  quietly  given  him  a  great 
deal  of  credit  for  it — went  into  the  Republican  party  with  his  national 
sentiments,  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  down  its  sectionalism  and  destroy 
ing  its  distinctive  features.  But  his  speech  to-day  ought  not  to  go  to  the 
country  without  some  response  from  a  Democratic  member  from  his 
own  State.  This  response  I  will  endeavor  to  give,  without  premeditation 
or  preparation. 

It  seems  to  me  proper,  as  the  nominee  presented  by  the  Republican 
party  for  Speaker  is  a  Republican  from  the  State  of  Ohio,  that  the  poli 
tics  of  the  Republican  party  of  that  State,  of  which  he  is  an  exponent, 
should  be  discussed.  I  am  ready  to  say  here,  that  that  nominee  is  per 
sonally  as  unexceptionable  to  the  Democratic  party  as  any  man  of  the 
other  side,  unless  it  might  be  my  friend  who  has  just  taken  his  seat  [Mr. 
CORWIN].  I  know  that  my  friend  paid  his  respects  to  me  and  my  dis 
trict  last  year..  He  then  charged  me  with  inconsistencies  which  are  not 
quite  so  glaring  as  those  which  he  has  exhibited  here  to-day.  But  I  give  my 
acknowledgment  to  the  gentleman  for  the  increased  vote  which  the  Demo 
cratic  ticket  received  in  that  district,  in  consequence  of  the  national 
speeches  that  he  made  there.  .  A  great  many  of  the  people  of  southern 
Ohio,  national  men,  and  Democrats,  coincide  in  the  remarks  of  my  col 
league  [Mr.  CORWIN]  ;  but  it  is  not  true  that  what  he  has  said  embodies 
the  principles  of  the  Republican  party.  It  is  not  true  that  he  speaks  for 
their  organization  in  Ohio.  It  is  not  true  that  he  speaks  the  sentiments 
of  their  platform.  I  will  show  you,  before  I  sit  down,  that  that  organiza 
tion  is  one  subversive  of  the  Constitution,  one  that  strikes  down  the  judges 
of  the  State  for  daring  to  sustain  that  Constitution,  and  that  the  men 
in  that  party  in  Ohio,  who  do  not  go  along  with  J;he  men  who  speak 
the  abolition  sentiment  of  the  Western  Reserve,  are  mercilessly  slaugh 
tered. 

I  know,  sir,  that  gentlemen  stand  here  upon  this  floor,  representing 
Republican  constituents,  who  have  only  a  slight  varnish  of  Republicanism. 
Old  Whigs  go  before  the  State  convention,  make  their  speeches,  and 
present  their  candidates — national  men — but  they  are  always  overruled. 
Conventions  are  turned  into  slaughter  houses  for  national  men,  who 
still  cling  to  the  Republican  party.  How  was  it  in  respect  to  striking 
down  the  chief  justice  of  our  State,  for  nobly  doing  his  duty?  I  do  not 
know  whether  the  gentleman  who  aspires  to  be  speaker  indorsed  that  move 
ment.  f[  hope  that  he  belonged  to  that  other  wing  who  sustained  Judge 
Swan  in  his  decision  in  favor  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  fugitive  slave 
law.  But  the  fact  remains,  and  cannot  be  blotted  out;  and  so  long 


74  EIGHT   YEAES   EST   CONGRESS. 

as  Ohio  politics  arc  now  made  a  national  matter,  and  the  endeavor  is 
to  give  them  a  national  tinge  and  color,  I  want  the  country  to  understand 
its  lawless  and  orderless  character.  How  did  that  question  come  up 
in  the  last  campaign  of  our  State  ?  I  will  give  you  the  facts  in  a  few 
words : 

A  Kentuckian  lost  his  slave,  who  had  escaped  into  Ohio.  The  slave 
went  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  University  of  Oberlin,  and  when  he  got 
there,  he  was  aided  and  protected  by  that  class  of  men  who  think  that 
their  inward  convictions  should  be  the  highest  law  of  their  action,  irrespec 
tive  of  constitutional  obligation.  The  owner  of  that  slave  found  a  warrant 
for  his  action  in  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  passed  in  pursuance  of  it. 
He  went  to  the  United  States  commissioner  for  the  process  of  recapture. 
He  proceeded  lawfully.  It  was  found  that  he  had  a  right  to  reclaim 
the  fugitive  and  take  him  back  to  his  service.  After  obtaining  his  writ  at 
Columbus,  with  United  States  officers,  he  went  up  to  the  neighborhood  of 
Oberlin.  There  the  slave  was  arrested,  and  after  the  arrest,  a  party  of 
persons — Plumb,  Feck,  and  others — rescued  him  from  the  custody  of  the 
proper  officers  of  the  Government.  The  United  States  officers  did  not 
choose  to  lie  under  the  odium  of  failing  to  perform  their  duty.  They 
came  to  the  United  States  court  at  Cleveland,  and  there  had  these  Oberlin 
rescuers  indicted.  They  had  them  tried — these  men  who  have,  as  they 
claim,  the  peculiar  sanction  of  God  Almighty  to  rise  above  law  in  this 
country.  They  were  convicted.  And  what  was  the  result? 

Why,  sir,  a  scheme  was  devised  by  the  Republican  party  to  break 
down  that  conviction.  They  started  the  idea  that  the  law  was  unconsti 
tutional.  They  sent  for  Judge  Spalding,  who  is  the  fabricator  of  the  Re 
publican  platform  of  1856.  He  declared  the  fugitive  slave  law  to  be  un 
constitutional.  It  was  urged  that  before  punishment,  the  case  should  be 
taken  before  the  Supreme  Court.  Down  to  the  Supreme  Court  they  went, 
black  and  white,  lawyers  and  politicians,  down  to  Columbus  they  hurried, 
to  know  whether  the  law  was  constitutional  or  not.  What  was  the  result? 
They  found  that  we  had  five  judges  upon  our  supreme  bench — three  from 
southern  Ohio  and  two  from  northern  Ohio.  You  will  bear  in  mind  that 
there  is  a  local  sectionalism  in  the  Republican  party  in  Ohio,  as  there  is  a 
sectionalism  in  the  Republican  party  outside.  These  five  judges  on  our 
supreme  bench  were  the  tribunal  to  try  the  question.  Judge  Swan,  one 
of  my  constituents,  lived  in  Columbus.  He  was,  as  it  were,  between  the 
extremes  sectionally  and  politically.  "  Now,"  said  these  gentlemen,  "  we 
will  make  these  judges  decide  this  law  to  be  unconstitutional.  Judge 
Swan's  time  is  nearly  out — how  can  we  reach  him?  We  will  do  it  by 
bringing  this  discussion  before  the  Supreme  Court.  If  he  does  not  decide 
that  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  release  these  men  who  have  been 
convicted,  then  we  will  put  him  to  the  political  torture  !  "  Accordingly, 
the  eleven  counties  of  the  Western  Reserve,  which  give  the  Republicans 
their  majority  in  the  State,  were  appealed  to  ;  and  I  want  it  understood 
that  out  of  three  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  votes  cast  in  our  State,  there 
are  one  hundred  and  seventy-one  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-six 
good  Democratic  voters  who  have  no  approbation  for  servile  insurrection. 
[Applause  upon  the  Democratic  benches  and  in  the  galleries.]  Well, 
sir,  on  this  Western  Reserve,  these  men  asserted  that  the  United  States 


SEDITION   IN   TUB   NORTH.  75 

officers  ought  to  be  hung  as  pirates,  and  with  this  inspiration  formed  a 
society  which  they  called  "  The  Sons  of  Liberty."  But  that  would  not 
do.  The  gentleman  who  preceded  me  [Mr.  CORWTN]  told  us  about  the 
Cleveland  convention.  That  convention  was  intended  to  intimidate  Judge 
Swan.  They  passed  resolutions  for  that  purpose.  When  they  came  to 
that  meeting,  they  marched  through  the  streets  with  seditious  banners  and 
seditious  music.  I  saw  a  description  of  it  in  a  Republican  paper.  First 
marched  the  Sons  of  Liberty,  with  Giddings  at  their  head — Giddings, 
who  had  upon  this  floor  announced  himself  in  favor  of  a  servile  insurrec 
tion.  They  marched  through  the  streets  with  banners,  which  were  rev 
olutionary  against  the  Federal  Government,  and  which  were  appropriate 
to  Harper's  Ferry.  One  banner  is  noticeable.  On  one  side  of  it  is  writ 
ten  :  "  Ashtabula,  Regnante  Populo."  On  the  other  :  "  Sons  of  Liberty, 
1769 — Down  with  the  Stamp  Act!  1859. — Down  with  the  Fugitive 
Act !  "  Not  "  repeal  it,"  for  they  were  not  then  in  favor  of  that.  No 
Republican  has  risen  in  his  seat  here  and  moved  to  repeal  that  law. 
And  now,  though  committed  to  its  repeal  by  their  resolutions  passed  in 
convention,  there  is  not  one  of  them  who  rises  to  move  the  repeal  of 
that  enactment ;  and  the  very  gentleman  [Mr.  CORWIN]  upon  the  com 
mittee  who  reported  the  resolution  to  the  convention,  and  who  sustained 
the  nominee  placed  upon  the  platform  then  laid  down,  will  not  vote, 
as  he  has  told  us,  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  that  law.  It  was  "  down 
with  the  fugitive  slave  law ; "  crush  it  in  the  dust ;  and,  as  if  to  give 
significance  to  their  talk  upon  this  subject,  they  marched  through  the 
streets  to  the  music  of  the  old  French  revolutionary  song,  the  Mar 
seillaise  Hymn,  that  glorious  inspiration  of  Democracy  ;  that  defiance,  not 
against  constitutional  liberty,  but  against  despotic  kingcraft.  I  have 
understood  that  these  "  Sons  of  Liberty  "  and  the  students  from  Oberlin 
sung  it  in  French.  Now  you  know  our  friends  from  New  England,  who 
made  up  the  Sons  of  Liberty,  have  a  nasal  twang  peculiar  to  their  sing 
ing,  and  the  French  language  has  the  same  peculiarity,  and  when  the  two 
were  combined  they  produced  the  most  thrilling  effect  in  the  streets  of 
Cleveland.  [Laughter.]  Aux  armes  citoyens !  Formez  lataillons ! 
[Great  laughter.]  I  can  imagine  how  it  sounded.  They  marched  down 
ten  thousand  strong  and  appointed  Giddings  their  chairman.  Who  is  he? 
We  have  heard  him  in  this  hall.  We  know  who  he  is,  and  of  what  party 
are  those  who  stood  around  him  here  and  gave  him  aid  and  comfort  as  he 
preached  disunion  and  sectional  doctrine. 

Yesterday,  tvhile  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  NELSON]  was 
addressing  the  House  in  one  of  these  Union  strains,  in  order  to  show 
up  the  disunionists,  he  quoted  from  the  famous  or  infamous  appeal  in 
favor  of  servile  insurrection,  and  of  which  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair  is 
the  legitimate  fruit.  But  the  successor  of  Giddings  arose  and  denied  that 
that  gentleman  ever  uttered  such  a  sentiment  upon  this  floor.  That 
denial  will  not  do.  It  is  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  word  for  word,  as 
the  gentleman  read  it.  It  will  be  found  on  page  648  of  the  Globe  of  the 
first  session  of  the  Thirty-third  Congress  ;  and  I  will  have  it  read,  that 
gentlemen  may  see  where  the  seed  was  sown  of  which  this  servile  insur 
rection  at  Harper's  Ferry  was  the  inevitable  sequence.  Here  is  what  Mr. 
Giddings  said : 


76  EIGHT    YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

"  Sir,  I  would  intimidate  no  one ;  but  I  tell  you  there  is  a  spirit  in  the  North  which 
will  set  at  defiance  all  the  low  and  unworthy  machinations  of  this  Executive,  and  of  the 
minions  of  its  power.  When  the  contest  shall  come ;  when  the  thunder  shall  roll,  and  the 
lightning  flash ;  when  the  slaves  shall  rise  in  the  South  ;  when,  in  imitation  of  the  Cuban 
bondsmen,  the  southern  slaves  of  the  -South  shall  feel  that  they  are  men ;  when  they  feel 
the  stirring  emotions  of  immortality,  and  recognize  the  stirring  truth  that  they  are  men, 
and  entitled  to  the  rights  which  God  has  bestowed  upon  them ;  when  the  slaves  shall  feel 
that,  and  when  masters  shall  turn  pale  and  tremble,  when  their  dwellings  shall  smoke,  and 
dismay  sit  on  each  countenance,  then,  sir,  I  do  not  say  '  we  will  laugh  at  your  calamity, 
and  mock  when  your  fear  cometh,'  but  I  do  say,  when  that  time  shall  come,  the  lovers  of 
our  race  will  stand  forth,  and  exert  the  legitimate  powers  of  this  Government  for  freedom. 
We  shall  then  have  constitutional  power  to  act  for  the  good  of  our  country,  and  do  justice 
to  the  slave.  Then  will  we  strike  off  the  shackles  from  the  limbs  of  the  slaves.  That  will 
be  a  period  when  this  Government  will  have  power  to  act  between  slavery  and  freedom, 
and  when  it  can  makepeace  by  giving  freedom  to  the  slaves.  And  let  me  tell  you,  Mr*. 
Speaker,  that  that  time  hastens.  It  is  rolling  forward.  The  President  is  exerting  a  power 
that  will  hasten  it,  though  not  intended  by  him.  I  hail  it  as  I  do  the  approaching  dawn 
of  that  political  and  moral  millennium  which  I  am  well  assured  will  come  upon  the 
world." 

Mr.  HOT/CHINS.  If  I  mistake  not,  the  extract  read  from  tlie  Globe  is 
not  the  extract  quoted  by  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  yesterday.  That 
extract  is  as  follows  : 

"I  look  forward  to  the  day  when  there  shall  be  a  servile  insurrection  in  the  South  ; 
when  the  black  man,  armed  with  British  bayonets,  and  led  on  by  British  officers,  shall  as 
sert  his  freedom,  and  wage  a  war  of  extermination  against  his  master.  And  though  we 
may  not  mock  at  their  calamity,  nor  laugh  when  their  fear  cometh.  yet  we  will  hail  it  as 
the  dawn  of  a  political  millennium." 

Is  that,  word  for  word,  what  the  gentleman  has  read  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  know  nor  care  whether  it  is  word  for  word,  for  I 
said  yesterday  that  I  had  not  compared  it  with  the  original.  I  said 
yesterday  that  the  sentiment  was  the  very  same  ;  but  there  it  is,  from  the 
Globe,  every  whit  as  obnoxious. 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.     That  is  another  thing. 

Mr.  Cox.     Let  me  ask  the  getleman  if  he  indorses  that  sentiment  ? 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.  I  will  say  to  the  gentleman  that,  when  the  House  is 
organized,  and  I  can  get  the  floor  at  the  proper  time,  I  will  answer  all 
questions  which  may  be  put  to  me  ;  but  I  will  not  answer  any  now. 
[Hisses  from  the  Democratic  benches.]  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
ask  him  a  question?  [Cries  of  "  Oh,  no  !  that  won't  do  !  "] 

Mr.  Cox.  I  understand  that  my  colleague  was  sent  here  as  the  succes 
sor  of  Mr.  Giddings,  because  he  was  even  yet  more  radical  than  was  Gid- 
dings  himself,  who  was  compelled  to  stay  at  home,  because,  in  an  un 
guarded  moment,  he  voted  for  the  Montgomery-Crittenden  bill,  which  per 
mitted  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  recognizing  slavery. 
How  that  may  be  I  know  not ;  but  in  pursuance  of  my  other  statement, 
I  will  refer  to  the  Appendix  of  the  Congressional  Globe,  of  the  same  ses 
sion,  page  418,  where  there  has  been  some  modification  of  that  sentiment 
of  Mr.  Giddings,  but  not  such  a  modification  as  to  destroy  the  murderous 
force  and  seditious  intent  of  the  extract  cited  by  the  gentleman  from  Ten 
nessee. 

What  I  want  to  show,  particularly  to  my  colleague  [Mr.  CORWIN], 
who  does  not  differ  from  me  so  much  on  this  subject,  is  that  in  the  last 
campaign  in  Ohio,  he  was  supporting  a  platform  entirely  different  from 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  77 

his  sentiments  here  proclaimed.  He  aided  a  man  placed  upon  that  plat 
form  who  had  no  affinity  with  his  doctrines  in  relation  either  to  the  fugi 
tive  slave  laAv  or  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union,  or  the  sanctity  of  the 
constitutional  compact. 

Mr.  CORWIN.  Are  not  the  doctrines  I  put  forward  to-day  the  same 
as  those  avowed  in  Ohio  by  Governor  Dennison? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  answer.  The  gentleman  sustained  Governor  Den 
nison.  But  mark  you  !  at  the  same  revolutionary  meeting,  Governor  Den 
nison  was  present — 

Mr.  CORWIN.     No,  he  was  not. 

Mr.  Cox.  He  was  present,  as  I  was  about  to  say,  by  letter ;  more 
significant,  because  more  premeditated,  than  by  personal  presence.  And 
at  that  meeting,  which  was  called  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  down  the 
law  and  the  Constitution,  this  letter  from  Governor  Dennison,  dated  May 
20,  1859,  was  read.  I  will  read  the  concluding  paragraph : 

"  Let  me  express  my  ardent  hope  that  the  proceedings  of  your  convention  may  be 
such  as  will  permanently  contribute  to  the  advancement  of  the  sacred  principles  of  free 
dom,  justice,  and  humanity,  which  have  been  so  violently  assailed  by  the  imprisonment  hi 
your  county  jail  of  Plumb  and  Peck  and  their  devoted  colleagues,  under  the  insulting  pro 
visions  of  the  fugitive  slave  act." 

"What  does  that  mean?     My  venerable  friend  here  says — 

Mr.  CORWIN.     Not  venerable,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Cox.  Well,  my  young  friend  from  Ohio,  then— in  the  presence 
of  the  ladies  [Laughter] — my  young  friend  says  he  supported  Mr.  Den 
nison,  who  was  the  embodiment  of  the  principles  of  the  party,  and  he  sus 
tained  him  in  all  his  principles  and  all  his  conduct. 

Mr.  CORWIN.  I  ask  if  Governor  Dennison  did  not,  in  all  his  speeches 
in  Ohio,  advance  the  same  doctrines  as  I  did? 

Mr.  Cox.  If  Governor  Dennison  advanced  the  same  doctrines  as  the 
gentleman,  then  he  must  have  run  counter  to  his  own  most  deliberate 
written  statement.  He  says,  in  effect — "  You,  Plumb,  and  you,  Peck,  and 
all  your  '  devoted  colleagues  J  now  in  jail  for  breaking  the  law  of  the  United 
States ;  you  men  who  have  rescued  from  the  United  States  officers  one 
properly  in  their  charge  ;  you  who  were  guilty  of  breaking  the  law  and  the 
Constitution,  you  were  engaged  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  humanity,  and 
justice  " — forsooth  !  And  the  gentleman  says  he  sustained  Mr.  Dennison, 
and  the  sentiments  which  he  advocated.  If  he  thus  sustained  him, 
he  sustained  for  justice  that  which  breaks  down  the  courts  ;  he  sustained 
for  humanity  and  liberty  that  which  will  break  down  the  Constitution, 
which  under  God  is  the  best  and  the  most  refined  system  of  polity  ever 
vouchsafed  to  man  for  civil  government.  [Great  applause.] 

Mr.  ASHLEY.  Did  not  the  so-called  Democratic  party  sustain  Judge 
Ranney?  And  did  not  Eanney  oppose  the  fugitive  slave  law? 

Mr.  Cox.  As  to  the  last  question — no,  sir !  Judge  Eanney  stood 
by  the  fugitive  slave  law  after  it  was  enacted.  Yes,  and  the  old  Whig 
party,  too,  in  1850,  of  which  Gov.  Dennison  was  a  member,  of  which  he  was 
the  presidential  elector,  approved  in  their  platform  the  compromise  meas 
ures,  including  the  fugitive  slave  law,  as  a  finality  on  that  subject.  The 
gentleman  near  me  [Mr.  BINGHAM],  I  believe,  then  sustained  the  same 
measures.  But  last  year  they  were  found  in  convention  voting  against 


78  EIGHT   TEARS    IX   CONGRESS. 

that  finality.  They  regarded  it  as  a  dead  letter.  It  was  of  no  conse 
quence  any  longer  with  reference  to  this  Government.  The  comity  between 
the  States  was  nothing.  They  yielded  to  the  "  pressure  "  referred  to  by 
the  gentleman  [Mr.  CORWIN],  which  came  from  the  Reserve. 

Mr.  BIXGHAM.  I  understand  my  colleague  to  make  the  remark  that, 
in  the  year  1850,  I  approved  of  the  fugitive  slave  act.  I  beg  leave  to 
say  that  my  colleague  has  fallen  unintentionally  into  a  great  mistake  in 
reference  to  that.  In  1850,  according  to  my  recollection,  and  I  do  not 
think  I  am  mistaken,  there  was  a  convention  in  session  in  the  city  of  Nash 
ville  which  had  for  its  avowed  object  the  disruption  and  destruction  of  the 
American  Union  and  Constitution.  A  convention  was  called  in  Cincin 
nati  for  the  purpose  of  denouncing — 

Several  VOICES.     That  is  not  so. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  ask  you  simply  whether  you  sustained  the  fugitive  slave 
law? 

Mr.  BIXGHAM.     I  tell  the  gentleman  that  I  did  no  such  thing. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  am  satisfied  with  the  gentleman's  answer. 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  But  will  the  gentleman  do  me  the  justice  to  permit 
me  to  state  what  I  did  do  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  ask  you  whether  you  did  or  not,  at  Cincinnati,  at  a 
Union  meeting,  make  a  speech  sustaining  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  including  the  fugitive  slave  law? 

Mr.  BINGHAM.     I  did  no  such  thing. 

Mr.  Cox.     Then,  sir,  you  are  wrongly  reported  in  the  city  papers. 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  And  in  the  same  city  paper  I  am  reported  as  dissent 
ing  openly  and  publicly  in  that  speech  to  a  resolution  which  declared  that 
law  constitutional ;  and  I  dissent  .from  it  to-day  as  I  did  then.  The  speech 
to  which  I  refer  was  very  imperfectly  reported  in  the  papers. 

Mr.  Cox.  Oh  !  that  was  it !  Do  you  agree  with  my  distinguished 
friend  [Mr.  CORTVIN]  in  regard  to  its  constitutionality  ? 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  I  do  not  agree  with  him  or  any  other  man  as  to  its 
being  constitutional. 

Mr.  Cox.  Then,  where  are  we  to  find  any  harmony  in  the  Repub 
lican  party  on  this  subject? 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  I  answer  by  saying,  that  you  will  find  no  such  har 
mony  in  your  own  party. 

Mr.  Cox.  That  is  no  answer,  sir.  Our  distinguished  friend  [Mr. 
CORWIN]  who  spoke  to-day,  says  that  he  is  the  embodiment  of  that  party  ; 
and  the  gentleman  here  [Mr.  BINGHAM]  must  be  a  rebel.  I  do  not  un 
derstand  where  the  head  or  the  tail  of  the  Republican  party  is.  Is  the 
gentleman  [Mr.  CORWIN]  the  head  or  the  tail?  [Great  laughter.]  I 
think  of  it  as  the  Irishman  thought  of  the  elephant — "  there  is  sure  a  tail 
at  both  ends  of  the  animal."  [Great  laughter.] 

Now,  I  ask  my  distinguished  friend,  who  is  the  candidate  for  Speak 
er  [Mr.  SHERMAN],  whether  or  not  he  believes  in  the  constitutionality  of 
the  fugitive  slave  law?  I  hope  my  friend  will  do  me  the  courtesy  to 
answer  this  question.  It  is  a  serious  matter.  It  relates  to  one  of  the 
compromises  of  the  Constitution ;  one  of  the  sacred  compacts  under 
which  the  Republic  was  organized,  and  without  which  it  could  not  have 
been  made  and  could  not  continue  to  exist. 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  79 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  decline,  as  I  did  the  other  day,  to  answer  any  in 
terrogatories. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  did  not  hear  ray  colleague. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  will  repeat  it ;  I  decline  to  answer  the  interroga 
tory  of  my  colleague,  as  he  knew  I  would ;  and  I  will  state  to  him,  and  to 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  that  I  stand  upon  my  public 
record.  I  do  not  expect  the  support  of  gentlemen  on  that  side  of  the 
House,  who  have,  for  the  last  four  years,  been  engaged  in  a  series  of 
measures,  none  of  which  I  approve.  I  have  no  answers  to  give  to  them. 
[Applause  and  hisses.] 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  know  what  contest  is  meant  in  which  the  gentle 
man  has  so  conspicuous  a  record.  If  it  was  in  relation  to  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  or  the  admission  of  new  States,  I  do  not  think  his  record  is 
so  very  definite  upon  that  subject  that  he  can  treat  my  question  so  cava 
lierly  ;  for  when  the  State  of  Oregon  came  here  with  a  constitution  which 
was  free  and  made  by  the  people — free,  and  made  so  by  enough  of  them, 
where  was  the  record  of  the  present  candidate  for  Speaker  then  ?  Why, 
sir,  when  that  vote  was  taken,  or  just  before  it  was  taken,  when  he  had 
a  chance  to  manifest  his  sympathy  in  favor  of  a  free  State  on  the  Pacific, 
which  was  knocking  at  the  door  for  admission,  how  did  he  treat  those 
noble  Republicans  who  cry  aloud  for  freedom  in  his  State  ?  Why,  by 
going  precipitately  out  of  yonder  door.  [Roars  of  laughter  and  applause.] 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  Did  I  understand  my  colleague  to  allude  to  me  as 
evading  a  vote  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  saw  the  gentleman  in  the  hall  before  the  vote  was 
taken — but  a  few  moments  before. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.     Upon  what  question  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     The  Oregon  question. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.     Mr.  Clerk,  allow  me  to  say  to  my  colleague — 

MEMBERS  on  the  Democratic  side.  Don't  yield  to  him.  He  declines 
to  answer  questions. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  will  hear  my  colleague. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  will  say  to  my  colleague  that  I  never  evade  a  vote. 
Uniformly  upon  all  questions  relating  to  the  admission  of  Oregon,  I  voted 
against  it.  I  was  engaged  at  the  time  of  the  final  vote  on  a  special  com 
mittee  of  this  House,  and  I  went  down  to  the  committee  room  with  a 
gentleman  on  the  other  side. 

Mr.  Cox.  And  yet  every  other  member  of  your  committee  was  here 
to  vote  at  the  time  the  vote  was  taken  !  Mr.  Clerk,  the  gentleman  says 
he  voted  against  the  admission  of  Oregon  in  all  its  preliminary  stages, 
but  when  it  came  to  the  cap-sheaf — when  there  was  a  fair  opportunity  of 
extending  the  last  vote  of  welcome  to  the  expected  sister  State — when 
there  was  chance  to  put  the  apex  upon  freedom's  pyramid — he  was  not 
there ! 

Now,  I  only  wish  to  expose  the  inconsistent,  heterogeneous  elements 
which  make  up  this  mosaic,  called  Republicanism  in  Ohio.  What  are 
they  ?  Mr.  Dennison,  their  candidate  for  Governor,  as  I  have  already 
said,  was  an  old  line  Whig  in  1850,  was  a  General  Scott  elector  in 
1852,  and  sustained  the  platform  of  the  Whig  party,  which  said  the 
fugitive  slave  law  and  the  compromise  of  1850  were  a  finality.  He 


80  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

changed  round  this  year,  and,  by  the  aid  of  the  distinguished  gentleman 
who  last  spoke,  was  made  Governor  of  Ohio,  by  the  votes  of  the  Western 
Reserve  men  to  whom  he  bowed  in  the  dust.  By  the  letter  I  have 
quoted,  you  will  see  that  he  changed  all  his  notions  as  to  the  fugitive  slave 
act  and  the  compromises  of  1850.  He  hailed  the  infraction  of  the 
Constitution  as  justice  ;  he  hailed  the  breaking  of  the  law  as  liberty  ; 
he  hailed  the  rescuing  of  the  law-breakers  as  humanity.  And  then  he 
went  out  to  the  people  and  undertook  to  say  to  one  portion  that  he  was  an 
old-line  Whig,  and  to  another  he  sang  the  Marseillaise  Hymn  with  these 
Oberlin  gentlemen.  Now,  I  propose  to  read  the  rest  of  his  letter.  I 
wish  to  show  who  was  the  candidate  sustained  by  these  national  Republi 
cans  from  Ohio,  including  the  gentleman  [Mr.  CORWIN],  He  said  further : 

"  And  in  the  contest  between  the  antagonisms  of  freedom  and  slavery,  forced  upon  us 
by  the  southern  oligarchy  and  its  northern  allies,  we  may  at  all  times  prove  ourselves 
worthy  descendants  of  the  heroic  founders  of  the  Republic,  who  declared  one  of  the  great 
purposes  of  the  Federal  Constitution  to  be  the  securing  to  themselves  and  their  posterity 
'the  blessings  of  liberty.'  Accept  the  assurance  of  my  sincere  regard  personally,  and 
my  uncompromising  hostility  to  slavery  and  despotism  in  every  form." 

Well  now,  sir,  what  further  took  place  at  the  meeting  to  which  this 
letter  was  addressed  ?  Why,  I  will  tell  you.  Mr.  Giddings,  whose  sen 
timents  were  the  natural  antecedents  and  causes  of  the  Harper's  Ferry 
affair,  dismissed  that  convention  of  ten  thousand  with  a  benediction,  and 
they  all  came  down  to  the  city  of  Columbus,  black  and  white,  to  find  out 
whether  or  not  the  Supreme  Court  would  decide  adversely  to  the  constitu 
tionality  of  the  fugitive  slave  law.  They  thought  they  had  it  all  right. 
Judge  Swan's  time  was  nearly  out.  They  thought  they  would  hold  this 
abolition  rod  from  Cleveland  over  him.  But,  before  I  go  further  upon 
this  point,  allow  me  to  say  that  Governor  Chase  was  at  that  meeting  in 
Cleveland,  but  he  did  not  counsel  exactly  as  my  distinguished  friend  [Mr. 
CORWIN]  has  said  he  did.  He  did  not  counsel  them  to  fight  this  matter  at 
the  ballot-box  altogether.  He  got  up  in  that  meeting  of  disorganizes  and 
revolutionists  with  their  Marseillaise  Hymn,  and  their  cries  and  shrieks  of 
"  Down  with  the  fugitive  slave  law  !"  and  he  laid  his  hand  upon  his  heart, 
or  that  particular  part  of  his  anatomy  where  his  heart  is  supposed  to  re 
side  [applause  and  hisses],  and  he  said  : 

"  Some  of  the  most  respected  citizens  of  the  State,  whom  he  had  known  for  years,  had 
done  what  they  believed  to  be  right,  and  which  not  one  man  in  ten  thousand  would  look 
up  into  the  blue  sky,  with  his  hand  on  his  heart,  and  say  was  not  right." 

"This  case  has  been  brought  before  the  courts  of  the  State,  and  they  are  bound  to 
carry  out  their  duty  under  such  a  view  of  it.  If  the  process  for  the  release  of  any  prison 
er  should  issue  from  the  courts  of  the  State,  he  was  free  to  say  that  so  long  as  Ohio  was  a 
sovereign  State,  that  process  should  be  executed." 

He  promised  that  if  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  at  Columbus,  should 
decide  that  law  to  be  unconstitutional,  as  he  thought  it  was  unconstitu 
tional,  that  for  one,  as  chief  magistrate  and  commander-in-chief  of  the 
forces  of  our  State,  he  would  sec  that  that  nullification  was  made  effective, 
even  to  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  our  citizens.  [Laughter  from  the 
Republican  side.]  Yes,  sir,  let  them  laugh  over  it.  It  is  nevertheless 
true,  that  they  came  down  to  Columbus,  with  some  of  your  Harper's  Fer 
ry  cutthroats  among  them,  armed,  to  break  down  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  with  pistols  and  knives — black  men  and  white  men — to  despoil  the 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTI1.  81 

State  of  Ohio  of  its  fair  reputation  as  one  of  the  faithful  States  of  this 
Confederacy. 

Well,  it  happened  that  they  reckoned  without  their  host.  Judge  Swan 
delivered  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  court.  Though  he  had  been  a 
Republican,  and  had  received  eighty  thousand  majority  on  their  ticket  in 
1854,  he  held  that  for  sixty  years  the  law  of  1793  had  been  upon  the 
statute  book,  acquiesced  in  and  sustained,  and  that  the  law  of  1850, 
amending  it,  had  been,  by  the  same  authority,  sustained  by  the  Supreme 
Courts  of  Massachusetts,  of  Rhode  Island,  of  Pennsylvania,  of  Indiana, 
and  of  California,  and  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  on  the  circuit ;  and 
that  the  Wisconsin  case,  if  properly  examined,  was  no  exception  to  the 
general  rule,  which  decided  that  the  act  of  1793  and  its  amendment  of 
1850  were  constitutional  acts.  Here  is  the  exact  language  : 

"  Whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  now  exist  in  the  public  mind,  as  to  the  power 
of  Congress  to  punish  rescuers,  as  provided  in  the  acts  of  1793  and  1850,  no  such  vital 
blow  is  given  either  to  constitutional  rights  or  State  sovereignty  by  Congress  thus  enact 
ing  a  law  to  punish  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  to  demand  of 
this  court  the  organization  of  resistance.  If,  after  more  than  sixty  years  of  acquiescence, 
by  all  departments  of  the  national  and  State  governments,  in  the  power  of  Congress  to 
provide  for  the  punishment  of  rescuers  of  escaped  slaves,  that  power  is  to  be  disregarded, 
and  all  laws  which  may  be  passed  by  Congress  on  this  subject  from  henceforth  are  to  be 
persistently  resisted  and  nullified,  the  work  of  revolution  should  not  be  begun  by  the 
conservators  of  the  public  peace." 

And,  as  a  fit  and  eloquent  climax  to  his  decision,  he  used  this  expres 
sion,  as  nearly  as  I  can  give  it : 

"As  a  citizen,  I  would  not  deliberately  violate  the  Constitution  or  the  law  by  interfer 
ence  with  fugitives  from  service.  But  if  a  weary,  frightened  slave  should  appeal  to  me  to 
protect  him  from  his  pursuers,  it  is  possible  I  might  momentarily  forget  my  allegiance  to 
the  law  and  Constitution,  and  give  him  a  covert  from  those  who  were  on  his  track ;  there 
are,  no  doubt,  many  slaveholders  who  would  thus  follow  the  instincts  of  human  sympathy. 
And  if  I  did  it,  and  was  prosecuted,  condemned,  and  imprisoned,  and  brought  by  my 
counsel  before  this  tribunal  on  a  habeas  corpiis,  and  was  then  permitted  to  pronounce 
judgment  in  my  own  case,  I  trust  I  should  have  the  moral  courage  to  say,  before  God  and 
the  country,  as  I  am  now  compelled  to  say,  under  the  solemn  duties  of  a  judge,  bound  by 
my  official  oath  to  sustain  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  the  law :  '  The  prisoner 
must  be  remanded.' " 

That  was  the  decision  of  our  best  judge  in  Ohio,  our  chief  justice.  He 
was  a  man  of  spotless  integrity  of  character,  who  held  the  balance  of  jus 
tice  equipoised  between  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor.  He  was  learned, 
impartial,  and  decisive  for  the  right.  In  all  respects  he  was  an  upright 
judge.  And  for  deciding  thus,  mark  you,  for  being  an  impediment  in  the 
way  of  the  ambition  of  our  Republican  Governor,  for  refusing  to  aid  these 
higher-law  fanatics  of  the  Reserve,  for  refusing  to  serve  under  Joshua  R. 
Giddings  and  his  companions,  who  counselled  that  the  United  States 
officers  should  be  shot  down  as  pirates — for  doing  that,  the  Republican 
convention  struck  his  name  from  the  roll  of  judges  as  unfit  to  wear  the 
ermine  !  He  was  not  pliant  to  the  purposes  of  higher-law  fanaticism  ! 
And  my  colleague  [Mr.  CORWIN]  sustained  the  convention  in  this  lawless 
proceeding.  I  know  that  in  the  campaign  which  followed  he  preached 
strong  and  well  against  these  disorganizers  ;  but  I  never  could  under 
stand  why  he  took  the  stand-point  he  did,  from  which  to  hurl  his  thunders 
6 


82  EIGHT  YEABS   IN   CONGRESS. 

against  the  orderless  miscreants  of  our  State.  There  was  one  party  where 
he  might  have  done  it  with  consistency. 

When  the  Republican  convention  voted,  as  he  confesses  they  did,  and 
voted  unanimously,  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  was  "  subversive  of  both 
the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  contrary  to 
the  plainest  duties  of  humanity  and  justice,  and  abhorrent  to  the  moral 
sense  of  the  civilized  world,"  and  when  they  demanded  its  repeal,  where, 
I  submit  to  him,  does  it  place  him  before  the  country?  He  admitted,  in 
reply  to  my  question,  tha  tas  one  of  Mr.  Fillmore's  Cabinet  he  approved 
of  that  law ;  he  thinks  it  constitutional ;  he  will  not  repeal  it.  Yet  he 
contented  himself  with  voting  against  it  in  committee.  He  allowed  it  to 
pass  the  convention  without  dissent.  He  supported  the  candidates  who 
were  associated  with  its  most  solemn  declaration,  and  who  accepted  nomi 
nations  from  the  same  convention.  And  yet  further,  he  went  forth  to 
battle  in  the  State  against  the  very  platform  and  for  the  very  candidates 
thus  placed  before  the  people.  Am  I  not  right,  then,  in  saying  that  there 
was  no  other  mode  by  which  he  could  be  consistent  and  national,  except 
by  coming  over  to  the  Democratic  organization,  and  fighting  with  them 
for  the  integrity  of  the  laws  and  of  the  Constitution  ? 

That  there  may  be  no  mistake,  let  me  refer  to  the  resolution  of  the 
Republicans  of  Ohio : 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  proclaiming  our  determination  rigidly  to  respect  the  constitutional 
obligations  imposed  upon  the  State  by  the  Federal  compact,  we  maintain  the  union  of  the 
States,  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  the  liberties  of  the  people ;  and,  in  order  to  attain 
these  important  ends,  we  demand  the  repeal  of  the  fugitive  slave  act  of  1850,  as  it  is  sub 
versive  of  both  the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  as  contrary  to 
the  plainest  duties  of  humanity  and  justice,  and  abhorrent  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  civil 
ized  world." 

Now,  what  explanation  does  the  gentleman  give  us  of  this  remarkable 
resolution  ?  He  tells  us  that  there  was  a  clause  in  it,  when  before  the 
committee,  "  that  the  fugitive  slave  law  was  unconstitutional,  and  that  it 
was  stricken  out  before  reported."  Ay,  sir,  that  was  the  compromise 
that  was  made  in  the  committee.  After  striking  that  out  to  please  the 
weaker  wing,  then  to  please  the  dominant  abolition  wing  they  go  right 
into  the  convention  and  strike  down  the  man  who  had  decided  it  to  be 
constitutional.  Is  not  this  a  much  more  emphatic  condemnation  of  that 
law  as  unconstitutional,  than  any  resolution?  If  I  had  time,  I  would 
weary  the  House  with  the  evidence  from  Republican  journals  and  leaders, 
showing  that  Judge  Swan  was  thus  immolated,  and  because  of  that  very 
decision.  The  selection  of  his  competitor,  Judge  Gholson,  was  not  from 
convenience  of  locality.  It  was  because  he  was  recommended  as  a  prac 
tical  Abolitionist,  who  had  freed  his  slaves  in  Mississippi. 

Well,  Mr.  Clerk,  I  might  pursue  this  matter  further.  I  have  heard 
my  friend  here  [Mr.  CORWIN]  make  appeals  to  the  patriotic,  the  order- 
loving,  the  law-abiding  people  of  our  State  and  of  my  own  city.  The 
very  night  after  the  convention  was  held,  I  heard  him  make  a  speech  in 
Columbus.  I  happened  to  be  in  the  audience  among  some  of  the  gentle 
men  from  the  Reserve  while  he  was  speaking,  and  many  of  them  thought 
— and  gave  expression  to  their  thoughts — that  he  was  making  a  Demo 
cratic  speech.  [Much  laughter.]  I  heard  a  gentleman  in  my  neighbor- 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  83 

hood  say  that  he  believed  the  pro-slavery  men  had  "  yanked  Governor 
Corwin  right  reound "  on  this  question,  and  that  l<  his  speech  was  no 
better  than  one  of  your  cursed  Locofoco  speeches."  [Roars  of  laughter.] 

Now,  you  see  the  position  of  this  Ohio  Republican  party.  1  venture ' 
the  assertion  that  if  we  could  poll  the  members  of  the  Ohio  delegation 
on  the  other  side  of  the  House,  we  should  find  them,  perhaps,  equally 
divided  on  this  momentous  question  on  which  the  union  of  the  States  is 
founded,  and  without  which  it  never  could  have  been  made.  I  think  that 
perhaps  my  friend  on  the  right  [Mr.  CORWIN]  would  be  in  a  minority  if 
he  were  to  poll  the  delegation.  He  shakes  his  head.  How  do  you  think 
it  stands?  You  have  how  many  members? 

Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM.     Fifteen. 

Mr.  Cox.  You  have  fifteen  members  of  the  delegation.  Did  you 
ever  poll  them  ?  No  ?  You  do  not  know  how  they  stand  upon  this  ques 
tion.  Well,  my  impression  is  that  you  are  in  a  minority,  and  if  you  do 
want  to  hold  a  class-meeting  some  time,  as  you  said,  and  will  call  in  your 
Democratic  brethren,  we  will  take  the  sense  or  the  census  of  the  meeting. 
[Great  laughter.] 

I  was  gratified,  Mr.  Clerk,  to  hear  our  friend  here  give  us  a  little  dia 
lectics  on  the  subject  of  the  higher  law.  I  would  have  been  glad  if  it  had 
been  delivered  in  Ohio — in  Cleveland — before  the  Harper's  Ferry  foray 
took  place,  before  the  disunion  meeting  there  the  other  day.  Perhaps  he 
did  deliver  it.  I  know  he  did  deliver  some  portions  of  it.  But  Mr. 
Wendell  Phillips,  whom  he  denounces  here  so  eloquently,  is,  as  I  claim, 
in  his  logic  and  in  his  philosophy,  the  very  exponent  of  the  Republican 
theory  and  doctrine  ;  and  I  will  show  you  how  I  will  prove  it.  He  holds 
to  the  idea  of  individual  sovereignty. 

A  MEMBER.     Squatter  sovereignty? 

Mr.  Cox.  No,  sir ;  not  squatter  sovereignty,  nor  territorial  sover 
eignty,  nor  congressional  sovereignty.  He  opposes  congressional  sover 
eignty,  as  Republicans  oppose  it,  unless  it  prohibits  slavery.  He  opposes 
popular  sovereignty  all  the  time,  as  Republicans  do  ;  and  I  will  show  you 
wherein  he  agrees  with  the  Republican  party  in  its  philosophy.  He  says 
that  there  can  be  no  civil  society  unless  every  individual  member  of  it 
bows  to  its  authority.  He  says  that  Governor  Wise  had  no  more  right 
to  hang  John  Brown  than  John  Brown  had  to  hang  Governor  Wise.  In 
his  opinion,  the  State  of  Virginia  is  no  more  than  a  piratical  crew.  He 
says  that  there  can  be  no  majority,  no  minority.  Any  thing  which  comes 
into  opposition  with  his  convictions  must  go  down  before  those  convictions, 
not  excepting  even  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  country.  Herein  he 
is  in  harmony  with  the  dominant  segment  of  the  Republican  party.  That 
is  the  doctrine  of  Governor  Chase,  applied  to  the  Territories.  My  dis 
tinguished  friend  [Mr.  CORWIN]  shakes  his  head.  I  will  tell  him  where 
he  will  find  it.  He  will  find  it  in  his  message  of  January,  1857,  where 
he  says  that  he  believes  that  the  right  of  property  in  man  cannot  be 
created  by  any  civil  government ;  that  there  is  no  power  in  any  organized 
civil  community  to  create  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  ;  that  no  ma 
jority  in  a  Territory,  while  such,  or  when  it  frames  a  State  constitution, 
can  create  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  He  would  hold  that  each 
individual  has  the  right  for  himself  to  decide  all  these  questions  pertain- 


84  EIGHT  YEAKS   EN   CONGRESS. 

ing  to  personal  liberty,  any  law  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  Is  not 
this  the  Republican  doctrine  ?  Hence  Governor  Chase  is  logical  when  he 
says  that  Congress  may  prohibit  slavery,  but  that  it  has  no  power  to 
establish  it.  He  would  be  logical,  if  he  said  that  the  people  of  a  Terri 
tory,  by  majority,  might  prohibit  slavery,  but  have  no  power  to  establish 
it.  That  is  the  legitimate  consequence  of  this  individual  sovereignty 
preached  by  your  Wendell  Phillipses.  If  it  has  not  been  avowed  by  my 
honorable  friend,  at  least  he  has  indorsed  the  indorser  of  it.  He  says  : 
"Never!"  Why,  in  Columbus  one  year  ago — I  have  the  paper  here — 
you  paid  your  attention  to  my  district.  There  you  shook  hands  with 
Governor  Chase,  on  Goodale  Park  platform — did  you  not?  You  said  that 
you  had  voted  for  him,  and  had  stood  by  him.  Do  you  not  remember 
how  facetiously  you  remarked  on  your  own  countenance  ?  You  had  fur 
nished  your  complexion  to  the  party,  and  he  the  colored  principle.  [Great 
laughter.]  I  remember.  Don't  you  remember  how  cordially  you  em 
braced?  You  shake  your  head  again.  Pardon  me.  I  do  not  mean  a 
bodily  embrace — no,  by  no  manner  of  means  ;  but  you  had  a  most  affec 
tionate  political  hug  before  the  people  of  Ohio !  [Renewed  laughter.] 
What,  then,  did  the  gentleman  indorse  in  Governor  Chase  ?  He  indorsed 
the  individual  sovereignty  of  Wendell  Phillips,  as  applied  by  Governor 
Chase  to  civil  society  and  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  It 
is  the  same  doctrine  that  these  fanatics  have.  They  have  a  great  family 
of  isms.  You  can  tell  them 'all  by  their  hereditary  marks  of  insanity. 
[Laughter.]  Read  in  the  Tribune  the  enunciation  of  free-love.  Stephen 
Pearl  Andrews  comes  out — and  mark  how  his  logic  suits  Mr.  Wendell 
Phillips,  Governor  Chase,  and  the  whole  Republican  party.  Stephen 
Pearl  Andrews  says  that  he  is  for  individual  sovereignty,  not  in  reference 
to  slavery  in  the  Territories,  but  in  reference  to  the  affectional  nature. 
[Laughter.]  He  is  opposed  to  any  affinity  with  any  man  or  woman  who 
does  not  come  up  squarely  to  the  idea  of  free-love,  unrestrained  by  the 
marriage  relation  or  civil  authority.  He  says :  "  What !  Bring  your 
law  to  bear  upon  me  ;  enact  that  I  shall  live  in  a  state  of  marriage  under 
the  civil  law,  against  my  passional  attractions  ?  What !  Compel  my  sis 
ter  to  keep,  against  her  will,  with  her  old  husband  ?  No,  I  am  for  liberty, 
God  and  liberty  !  " — which  means  the  Devil  and  free  lust.  So  they  go 
on,  and  so  these  individual  sovereigns  run  through  the  catalogue,  from 
one  end  to  the  other.  They  are  all  tied  together  by  the  same  string  of 
isms  which  our  friend  here  has  so  eloquently  and  inconsistently  de 
nounced. 

Now,  Mr.  Clerk,  the  time  for  the  Republican  party  to  have  denounced 
these  dangerous  doctrines,  was  not  after  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair  had 
occasioned  so  much  dissatisfaction,  anxiety,  apprehension,  and  dismay  in 
the  South.  The  time  to  have  denounced  them  was  when  Mr.  Giddings 
made  his  speech  here  in  favor  of  servile  insurrection.  The  time  to  have 
denounced  them  was  when  Helper  came  along  with  his  book ;  when  Gov 
ernor  Seward  said  that  there  was  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution 
which  required  the  extermination  of  slavery,  and  "  that  you  and  I  must 
do  it."  Then  was  the  time  for  denunciation,  and  not  after  John  Brown, 
wrought  upon  by  the  everlasting  rub-a-dub  of  the  abolition  drum,  got  to 
gether  his  recruits,  crept  into  the  valley  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  collected  his 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  85 

$10,000  worth  of  rifles  and  pikes,  and  in  the  night,  when  no  premonition 
had  been  given,  when  all  was  hushed — 

Mr.  MILES.     On  Sabbath. 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir,  when  there  was  no  sound  to  disturb  the  quiet 
but  the  church-going  bell,  took  possession  of  an  armory  with  one  hun 
dred  thousand  stand  of  arms,  imprisoned  inoffensive  citizens,  and  killed 
others.  Why  did  you  not  denounce  these  doctrines  in  the  bud?  Why 
did  you  not  stop  the  bloody  instructions  of  which  this  is  the  fruit  ?  Why 
were  they  not  denounced  from  the  pulpit,  forum,  and  rostrum?  Why 
not  denounced  from  these  seats  in  Congress?  You  come  up  at  this  late 
day  and  say,  "  Oh  !  we  do  not  approve  of  this  thing.  The  people  of  the 
free  States  do  not  approve  of  it."  Neither  do  they.  My  friend  [Mr. 
CORWIN]  was  right  when  he  said  that  the  people  of  Ohio,  outside  of  the 
Western  Beserve,  are  not  in  favor  of  insurrection  and  dissolution.  I 
think  that  the  Reserve  ought  to  be  cut  off  and  slid  over  to  Canada,  for 
which  it  has  more  affinity  than  for  the  United  States.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  HUTCHINS.     Why,  then,  cut  off  a  part  of  the  Union? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  sure  that  our  people  would  be  glad  to  change  those 
counties  of  the  Western  Reserve  for  Cuba  and  cheap  sugar  and  molasses. 
[Great  applause  and  laughter.]  My  friend  is  a  correct  exponent  of  the 
sentiment  in  Ohio  in  reference  to  this  insurrection.  I  am  glad  he  has  re 
ferred  to  it  in  the  way  he  has.  I  will  add  my  testimony — feeble  as  it  is 
— to  the  testimony  of  the  gentleman,  to  convince  the  South  that  these  ma 
rauders  and  murderers  have  no  sympathy  with  the  mass  of  the  people  of 
that  State,  from  which  most  of  them  seem  to  have  come,  and  within  whose 
borders  they  concocted  their  fell  designs.  It  is  due  to  the  gentlemen  of 
the  South  who  have  shown  so  much  apprehension  on  this  subject,  to  say 
that  at  least  one  hundred  and  seventy-one  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  Democratic  voters  of  Ohio  put  their  seal  of  disapprobation  on  all  the 
men  connected  either  by  sentiment  or  act  with  this  matter.  [Applause  in 
the  galleries.]  That  was  the  vote  last  year  ;  and  if  it  were  properly  rep 
resented  in  this  Hall,  instead  of  six  Democratic  members  only,  we  would 
now  have  ten.  From  the  sentiment  of  this  year,  four  of  these  Republican 
gentlemen  would  be  compelled  to  bid  adieu  to  this  scene  of  congressional 
Hie. 

But  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  preceded  me  [Mr.  CORWIN]  says, 
and  says  truly,  that  there  is  no  sentiment  in  the  southern  part  of  our  State, 
at  least  in  that  part  of  the  State  which  he  and  I  represent,  which  would 
not  disapprove,  in  toto,  of  the  men  who  have  preached  and  acted  out  this 
servile  insurrection.  There  is  no  sentiment  in  that  part  of  Ohio  which 
does  not  at  once  and  forever  protest  against  that  horrible  spectre  of  history 
— a  servile  insurrection.  I  may  go  further  and  do  justice  to  the  Republi 
can  vote  of  Ohio  this  year.  It  was  one  hundred  and  eighty-four  thousand 
five  hundred  and  two  ;  more  than  half  that  number,  sir,  in  my  judgment, 
thoroughly  condemn  this  raid  upon  Virginia.  While  I  admit  the  sentiment 
is  different  in  the  Reserve  and  at  Cleveland  ;  while  I  admit  that  the  noisy 
leaders  and  blatant  journalists  who  undertake  to  manage  and  do  control 
the  Republican  party  in  its  platform  and  candidates,  are  not  blessed  with 
the  same  genuine  spirit,  I  freely  and  willingly  bear  my  testimony  to  the 
public  execration  which  in  Ohio  has  followed  the  insurgents  at  Harper's 
Ferry,  their  aiders  and  abettors.  Let  me  go  farther. 


86  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

When  you  come  to  the  great  Northwest  you  find  one  million  one  hun 
dred  and  sixty-two  thousand  voters  in  her  seven  States.  This  is  a  hun 
dred  thousand  more  than  all  the  voters  in  the  South,  one-third  of  the  whole 
Union,  and  three  times  as  many  as  New  England.  I  believe,  sir,  that 
more  than  one-half  of  these  votes  will  be  cast  in  1860  for  the  Democratic 
party,  for  the  rights  of  the  States  and  the  permanence  of  Federal  concord. 
You  will  find  these  voters  warm  in  favor  of  the  Union,  and  the  Constitu 
tion,  which  is  the  only  ligament  which  holds  that  Union  together.  You 
will  find  this  attachment  not  merely  in  our  party,  but  among  the  very  men 
who  voted  for  my  friend  [Mr.  CORWIN]  and  many  of  the  Republicans  upon 
this  floor.  Look  to  the  great  Northwest,  and  to  its  power  as  it  is  now, 
and  as  it  will  be.  She  has  a  lake  and  river  tonnage  of  four  hundred  thou 
sand  tons,  and  five  thousand  miles  of  river  and  lake  coast.  She  has,  and 
must  have  ever,  the  Mississippi  River  as  her  outlet.  Has  she  nothing  at 
stake  ?  She  will  be  able  to  protect  herself  and  the  Union  besides.  In 
1860  she  will  have  as  many  Representatives  upon  this  floor  as  the  whole 
South  will  then  have,  and  three  members  to  one  from  New  England.  You 
will  find  in  her  a  conservative  element  which  will  say  to  the  North,  with 
its  extremists,  and  to  the  South,  with  its  extremists,  "  Thus  far  shalt  thou 
go,  and  no  further  ;  here  shall  the  waves  of  disunion  be  stayed  !  "  You 
will  find  in  the  Northwest  a  conservative  element,  which,  if  we  have  the 
Cincinnati  platform  unaltered,  will  rise  up  to  the  support  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  as  the  only  safe  repository  of  that  constitutional  power  by 
which  this  Government  is  to  be  carried  on. 

It  is  said  by  men  of  science  that  the  least  disturbance  of  the  law  of 
gravitation  in  the  universe  will  not  only  disturb  the  stars  in  their  courses, 
but  that  it  will  change  the  position  of  the  lightest  flower  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth.  So  it  is  with  respect  to  that  political  gravitation  by  which  the 
States  are  held  in  their  spheres  as  they  revolve  around  the  Federal  centre. 
Not  only  will  the  disturbance  of  our  Confederation  and  Constitution,  and 
the  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  in  the  least  particular,  whether  by  re 
sistance  to  law  or  by  riotous  insurrection,  disturb  the  relation  of  the  vari 
ous  States,  but  it  will  disturb  that  concord  of  feeling  in  each  individual 
citizen  which  is  the  flower  of  our  patriotism — without  which  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  Union  cannot  be  preserved.  Without  fraternity  of  feeling 
that  Constitution  is  a  dead  letter — a  mere  wisp  of  straw — a  rope  of  sand. 
There  is  a  sentiment  in  the  Northwest  which  cannot  and  will  not  listen  to 
a  disunion  sentiment. 

I  regret  to  hear  upon  this  side  of  the  Chamber  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union  spoken  of  as  a  contingency.  I  wish  to  say  in  behalf  of  the  na 
tional  Democrats  of  Ohio,  that  with  them  there  is  no  such  word  as  that 
rung  in  our  ears  by  Southern  gentlemen — "dissolution  of  the  Union  per 
se."  We  know  of  no  dissolution  per  se.  We  have  no  dead  or  living  lan 
guage  to  phrase  such  sentiments.  We  are  for  the  Constitution  and  for  the 
Union.  We  have  no  language  to  express  any  thing  with  respect  to  break 
ing  those  ties,  so  eloquently  depicted  by  my  friend  [Mr.  CORWIN],  which 
bind  us  together.  Those  ties  are  as  old  as  the  Constitution.  I  am  pre 
pared,  as  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  JOHN  COCHRANE]  said  the 
other  day,  to  sail  over  many  a  stormy  sea  in  the  protection  of  that  Union 
and  Constitution.  If  I  have  read  aright  the  history  of  the  formation  of 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NOETH.  87 

the  Constitution,  its  framers  had  troubles  and  trials  far  more  vexatious 
and  arduous  than  those  we  have  undergone  in  preserving  it.  It  was 
as  long  as  from  March  to  September,  1787,  before  they  could  agree 
upon  an  instrument,  and  before  it  could  go  out  to  the  States  for  their  rati 
fication.  They  quarrelled  about  the  slave  trade  ;  they  quarrelled  about 
the  three-fifths  representation  of  slaves  in  making  up  this  body ;  and  it 
was  not  until  such  patriotic  appeals  were  made  as  we  have  heard  here  by 
gentlemen  upon  this  side  of  the  Chamber,  that  they  could  come  together 
and  agree  upon  this  common  Constitution.  Too  many  of  their  descend 
ants  are  too  quick  to  listen  to  the  cry  of  disunion.  We  of  the  Northwest 
have  no  affinity  with  any  one  who  utters  that  cry,  whether  from  the 
North  or  South. 

I  remember  an  incident  that  occurred  in  the  late  Sepoy  rebellion  in 
India — a  servile  insurrection,  which  might  have  found  more  than  its 
counterpart,  if  the  late  affair  at  Harper's  Ferry  had  been  consummated  as 
it  was  designed.  You  remember  that  Lucknow  was  besieged  for  months 
by  those  fiends  in  human  shape,  who  did  what  Brown  would  have  had  the 
negroes  of  Virginia  do.  Death  stared  the  beleaguered  garrison  in  the  face. 
The  engineers  even  gave  up  hope.  A  day,  and  all  would  be  lost !  A 
fever-stricken  Scotch  lassie,  overcome  with  fatigue,  lay  upon  the  ground, 
wrapped  in  her  plaid  and  slumber.  Suddenly  she  gave  a  cry  of  joy.  Her 
delirium  passed  away.  She  exclaimed:  "  Dinna  ye  hear  it?  Dinna 
ye  hear  it?  Ay,  I  am  no  dreamin'.  It's  the  slogan  of  the  Highland 
ers.  We're  saved  !  We're  saved  !  "  The  young  girl  had  a  keen  ear  for 
her  national  music.  She  was  from  the  Highlands — the  home  of  the  Mac- 
Gregors  and  the  Douglas  !  The  duller  ear  of  the  Lowlanders  did  not  catch 
the  inspiring  strain.  I  think,  sir,  I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying  that  we 
of  the  Northwest  have  a  quicker  ear  for  the  music  of  the  Union.  Through 
the  noise  of  strife  and  the  cannonade  of  insurrection,  and  while  other 
sections  have  dulled  their  sense  by  too  frequent  allusions  and  reflections 
upon  disunion,  there  remains  in  the  Northwest  the  ready  love,  the  unself 
ish  devotion,  and  the  patriotic  zeal  which  is  quick  to  hail  the  music  of 
the  Union  as  the  harbinger  of  our  safety  and  repose !  [Applause  from 
the  galleries.] 


NORTHERN  DISUNIONISTS  AGAIN. 

EXPULSION   OF   A   MEMBER. — THE   REPUBLICANS  ARP.AIGNED  FOR  THEIR  INCIVISM. 

ON  the  9th  of  April,  1864,  the  Speaker,  COLFAX,  offered  a  resolution  to 
expel  Mr.  LONG,  of  Ohio.  Without  any  knowledge  or  expectation  of  such 
a  movement,  Mr.  Cox  took  the  floor  after  the  Speaker,  and  said : 

I  approach  this  matter  with  becoming  seriousness.  The  extraordinary 
spectacle  is  presented  of  our  Speaker  descending  from  the  chair  to  make  a 
motion  to  expel  one  of  the  members  of  this  House  for  words  spoken  in 
debate.  The  occasion  calls  for  more  than  the  usual  gravity  of  delibera 
tion.  I  was  not  present  when  my  colleague  [Mr.  LONG]  made  the  re- 


88  EIGHT  YEAES  IN   CONGRESS. 

marks  which  have  called  out  this  resolution.  I  am  told  by  members 
around  me  that  his  remarks  do  not  bear  the  interpretation  given  to  them 
by  the  speech  and  resolution  of  the  honorable  Speaker.  Before  a  resolu 
tion  of  this  startling  nature  was  introduced,  we  should  have  had  the  official 
report  of  those  remarks  in  the  Globe.  If  action  be  demanded  for  the  ex 
pulsion  of  a  Representative  of  the  people,  for  the  exercise  of  his  constitu 
tional  right  of  free  debate,  we  should  have  the  most  authentic  record  of 
that  debate.  As  I  am  informed,  the  language  of  my  colleague  was  so 
qualified  as  to  make  it  far  less  objectionable  than  the  statement  of  it  in 
the  resolution.  Still,  sir,  it  may  be  obnoxious,  and  yet  there  may  be  no 
just  ground  for  this  proceeding  of  expulsion. 

Had  I  been  in  my  seat  yesterday,  with  all  due  respect  to  my  colleague, 
I  should  have  promptly  risen  and  disavowed,  on  behalf  of  all  the  delegation 
from  Ohio  with  whom  I  have  conversed,  any  sentiments  uttered  by  him 
or  any  one  else,  looking  to  the  recognition  of  the  Confederate  Government 
as  an  independent  Power.  So  far  as  I  can  learn,  there  is  not  a  member 
acting  with  this  side  of  the  House,  unless  it  be  my  colleague,  who  is  not 
opposed  in  every  conceivable  view,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  such  recog 
nition.* 

I  speak  earnestly  and  consciously  of  this,  because  an  attempt  was 
made  yesterday  to  make  partisan  capital  for  the  other  side  out  of  the 
speech  of  my  colleague.  But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  he  said  that 
he  spoke  only  for  himself,  and  not  for  his  party.  He  was  frank,  true,  and 
honest  in  that  avowal.  He  did  not  speak,  nor  propose  to  speak,  for  his 
party.  He  did  not  speak  for  his  Democratic  colleagues. 

Very  recently  .we  have  had  a  convention  of  the  Democratic  people  of 
Ohio,  representing  over  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  voters.  In 
that  convention,  sir,  no  sentiments  were  uttered,  and  none  would  have 
been  tolerated,  like  those  to  which  exception  has  been  taken.  On  the  con 
trary,  the  only  person  whose  name  was  presented  to  that  convention  as  a 
delegate  to  the  Democratic  national  convention,  who  avowed  sentiments 
looking  toward  the  recognition  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  who  printed 
a  learned  and  able  pamphlet  to  circulate  among  the  members  of  the  con 
vention,  in  exposition  of  his  views,  received  but  a  few  votes  among  several 
hundred  in  that  convention  ;  showing  that  the  Democrats  of  Ohio,  for 

*  As  Mr.  PENDLETON  afterwards  called  this  remark  in  question,  I  republish  the  follow 
ing  card : 

"  HOUSE  OF  EEPBESENTATIVES,     > 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Maj-  20. ) 

"  On  the  evening  after  Mr.  LONG  delivered  his  speech,  the  undersigned  members  of  the 
Democratic  delegation  in  Congress  from  Ohio,  consulted  with  such  of  their  colleagues  as 
they  could  meet,  in  reference  to  the  propriety  of  protesting  against  the  sentiments  ex 
pressed  by  Mr.  LONG,  '  that  the  alternative  was  now  presented  between  subjugation'  and 
annihilation,  or  recognition.'  The  following  named  persons  concurred  in  protesting 
against  the  doctrine  of  recognition,  viz. :  Messrs.  BLISS,  NOBLE,  HDTCIIINS,  JOHNSTON,  LE 
BLOND,  J.  W.  WHITE,  MORRIS,  FINCK,  O'NEIL,  Cox,  and  McKiNNEY.  The  other  members 
were  not  seen.  Those  who  were  not  consulted,  agreed  to  meet  in  caucus  next  morning 
before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  to  agree  upon  the  form  of  protest.  Seven  met,  and  be 
fore  the  others  came  to  the  place  of  meeting  or  any  action  was  had,  the  ywere  notified 
that  a  resolution  was  introduced  to  expel  Mr.  LONG,  whereupon  they  repaired  to  tho 
House,  and  Mr.  McKiNNEY  informed  Mr.  Cox  (who  was  not  at  the  meeting)  of  the  agree 
ment  of  the  eleven  members  above  mentioned.  J.  F.  McKiNNEY, 

GEO.  BLISS." 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  89 

whom  I  speak,  are  not  prepared  in  any  shape,  however  plausible,  to  ac 
cept  the  disintegrating  doctrine  to  which  this  resolution  refers.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Democratic  people  of  that  State,  when  the  war  came,  which 
they  endeavored  but  failed  to  avert,  rallied  to  the  defence  of  this  Govern 
ment.  They  sustained  it  in  every  emergency.  We,  the  members  upon 
this  side  of  the  House,  had  and  yet  have  our  brothers  and  our  friends  in 
the  Army  doing  battle  for  the  Republic,  although  they  do  not  agree  with 
the  peculiar  African  policies  pursued  by  this  Administration. 

I  refer  to  the  position  of  the  Ohio  Democracy  with  pride,  because  of 
the  imputations  thrown  upon  them  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  GARFIELD]. 
He  followed  the  speech  of  my  colleague  from  the  second  district  [Mr. 
LONG],  and  strove  to  make  political  points  for  his  party,  not  by  misrep 
resenting  him  so  much  as  by  misrepresenting  the  Democracy. 

Now,  I  propose  to  show  that  if  the  sentiments  attributed  to  my  colleague 
are  unpatriotic  and  treasonable,  the  prominent  men  of  the  Republican  party 
are  amenable,  for  similar  sentiments,  to  the  same  condemnation.  There 
is  scarcely  a  leading  member  of  the  opposite  party,  from  the  Executive 
down,  who  is  not  committed  in  doctrine,  if  not  in  practice,  to  the  separation 
of  these  States.  I  shall  show  that  members  opposite  deserve  expulsion 
by  the  same  rule  which  they  would  mete  out  to  my  colleague. 

I  pass  over  for  the  present  the  sacred,  constitutional  right  of  free  de 
bate  in  this  Chamber  of  American  Representatives,  and  proceed  to  show 
that  this  resolution  comes  with  a  bad  grace  from  that  quarter  in  which  so 
much  sedition  and  revolution  have  been  expressed  and  acted. 

And  first,  I  desire  to  ask  of  the  Speaker  if  he  had  forgotten  when  he 
penned  this  resolution,  that  in  the  last  Congress  a  most  acute  member  of  the 
Republican  party,  in  good  standing  and  sweet  fellowship— Judge  Conway, 
of  Kansas — not  only  made  a  remarkable  speech  in  favor  of  the  recogni 
tion  of  the  South,  but  offered  solemn  resolutions  affirming  the  heinous 
doctrine.  If  the  honorable  Speaker  has  forgotten  the  fact,  let  him  turn  to 
the  Journal  of  the  House  of  December  15,  1862,  page  69,  and  he  will  find 
the  following  resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Conway.  I  quote  such  of  them 
as  bear  on  the  points  in  discussion  : 

"  Resolved,  That  freedom  and  slavery  cannot  coexist  in  the  same  Government  without 
producing  endless  strife  and  civil  war ;  that  '  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand ; ' 
and  that  '  this  nation  must  be  all  free  or  all  slave.' 

"Resolved,  That  the  American  Union  consists  of  those  States  which  are  now  loyal  to 
the  Federal  Constitution. 

"Resolved,  That  the  restoration  of  the  Union  as  it  existed  prior  to  the  rebellion  would 
be  a  greater  calamity  than  the  rebellion  itself,  since  it  would  give  new  life  to  the  'irrepres 
sible  conflict,'  and  entail  upon  the  nation  another  cycle  of  bitter  contention  and  civil  war. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  seceded  States  can  only  be' put  down,  if  at  all,  by  being  regarded 
as  ou£  of  constitutional  relations  with  the  Union,  and  by  being  assailed  upon  principles  of 
ordinary  warfare  as  between  separate  nations. 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  a  matter  for  serious  reflection  whether  another  election  of_Presi- 
dent  must  not  supervene  before  the  rightful  authority  of  the  nation  can  be  established ; 
and  whether  in  the  mean  time  it  is  not  a  flagrant  waste  of  our  energies  to  continue  the  war. 

"Resolved,  That  unless  the  Army  of  the  West  shall  have  swept  through  the  valley  of 
the  Mississippi  to  its  mouth,  and  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  annihilated  the  legions  of  Lee 
and  Jackson,  thus  subverting  the  military  power  of  the  rebellion  within  a  reasonable 
time,  the  best  interests  of  the  country  and  humanity  will  require  a  cessation  of  hostilities. 

"Resolved,  That  the  States  of  the  North  composing  the  American  nation,  and  wielding 
its  power,  must  ever  remain  one  and  indivisible  on  the  basis  of  freedom  for  all,  without 


90  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

distinction  of  race,  color,  or  condition ;  that  their  mission  must  ever  be  to  extend  their 
own  civilization  over  the  entire  continent ;  and  that  whatever  derangements,  difficulties, 
checks,  or  defeats  they  may-  encounter,  they  must  forever  cherish  and  pursue  the  inspiring 
idea  of  nationality  and  continental  dominion." 

From  which  it  will  appear  that,  after  affirming  the  irrepressible  con 
flict,  it  was  resolved  that  the  American  Union  consisted  only  of  those 
States  which  are  now  loyal  to  the  Federal  Constitution ;  that  the  restora 
tion  of  the  old  Union  would  be  a  greater  calamity  than  the  rebellion  itself; 
that  the  seceded  States  should  be  regarded  as  out  of  constitutional  relations 
with  the  Union ;  that  until  the  election  of  another  President  it  was  a 
flagrant  waste  of  our  energies  to  continue  the  war.  Does  the  honorable 
Speaker  remember  that  those  resolutions  recognized  that  only  the  States 
North  composed  the  American  Union  ?  If  he  did,  why  did  not  this  sensi 
tive  gentleman  [Mr.  COLFAX],  who  was  not  then  in  the  chair  but  upon 
the  floor,  come  forward  with  a  resolution  for  the  expulsion  of  his  friend 
Mr.  Conway?  I  ask  the  Speaker  to  respond  to  that  question.  Why 
did  you  not  do  it,  sir?  Is  such  a  resolution  fair  toward  a  member  on  this 
side  and  unfair  toward  a  member  on  the  other?  You  were  for  free  speech 
and  free  resolution  then  ;  I  am  for  it  now  as  then.  Why  do  you  pursue 
my  colleague  to  disgrace  him,  when  you  did  not  lisp  a  word  about  expel 
ling  one  from  your  own  ranks  who  was  in  favor  of  disparting  the  old 
Union  and  recognizing  the  nationality  of  the  Southern  confederacy  ?  The 
Speaker  does  not,  for  he  cannot,  answer.  I  will  yield  to  him  to  respond. 

Mr.  GOLF  AX.  The  gentleman  from  Indiana  claims  the  floor  whenever 
he  sees  fit  to  claim  it,  and  declines  speaking  in  the  midst  of  the  speech  of 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio. 

j\Ir.  Cox.  The  gentleman  is  distinguished  as  well  for  his  prudence  as 
for  his  sagacity. 

Mr.  ALLISON.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  if  he  believes 
that  Mr.  Conway  ought  to  have  been  expelled  from  the  last  Congress  un 
der  the  circumstances. 

Several  MEMBERS.     Oh,  that  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Cox.  When  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  answers  my  ques 
tion,  I  will  answer  him.  I  will  do  it  any  how.  I  do  not  think  that  he 
should  have  been  expelled  any  more  than  we  should  expel  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  STEVENS]  for  his  speech  in  favor  of  re 
garding  the  Confederacy  as  a  de  facto  government,  and  that  war  should  be 
carried  on  against  it,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  as  an  independent 
Power  established  by  its  arms  and  recognized  by  the  nations.  The  mem 
ber  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  STEVENS],  if  I  remember  his  speech  on  that 
subject,  quoted  Vattel  in  favor  of  his  policy,  which  he  predicated  upon  the 
idea  of  the  independence  of  the  southern  government.  Ay,  and  my  col 
league  [Mr.  GARFIELD],  who  is  a  fair  debater  generally,  has  taken  the 
same  ground  as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  holding  that  an  insur 
rection  as  formidable  as  this  requires  the  laws  of  war  to  be  applied  as 
between  two  distinct  and  independent  sovereignties.  The  men  who  hold 
that  doctrine  are  not  the  men  to  expel  another  member  who  holds  to  the 
same  doctrine. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     Will  my  colleague  yield  to  me  for  a  moment? 

Mr.  Cox.  With  great  pleasure.  I  would  not  do  my  colleague  any 
injustice. 


SEDITION   IN   THE    NOKTH.  91 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  My  colleague  does  do  me  injustice  in  what  lie  has 
just  uttered.  If  he  will  do  me  the  honor  to  read  my  speech  on  confisca 
tion,  on  this  particular  he  will  find  that  I  take  most  decisive  ground  against 
the  position  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  and  therein  deny  in  toto 
the  doctrine  that  these  are  a  foreign  people.  On  the  contrary,  I  therein 
claim  that  they  are  in  the  Union,  and  that  all  the  obligations  of  the  Con 
stitution  overhang  them.  But  in  putting  down  this  rebellion  we  have 
been  told  by  the  Supreme  Court  that  we  are  to  pursue  them  by  the  laws 
of  war,  the  same  as  the  laws  between  foreign  nations,  but  not  thereby  ad 
mitting  that  they  are  a  foreign  nation. 

Mr.  Cox.  Well,  I  cannot  understand  that  distinction,  but  I  accept  it ; 
and  then  I  ask  my  colleague,  if  he  holds  that  the  Confederacy  is  not  an 
independent  nation,  and  if  he  thus  antagonizes  the  position  of  the  gentle 
man  from  Pennsylvania,  why  he  is  not  in  favor  of  expelling  that  gentle 
man  for  holding  that  doctrine  and  avowing  it  openly  ?  Did  I  understand 
that  my  colleague  does  not  follow  the  leader  of  his  party  in  this  House 
upon  this  doctrine  ?  I  pause  if  my  colleague  will  favor  me  Avith  a  reply. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  draw  a  most  marked  and  broad  distinction  be 
tween  the  opinion  of  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  and 
the  opinions  of  my  colleague  from  the  second  district  [Mr.  LONG].  The 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  is  in  favor  of  prosecuting  the  war  to  the 
uttermost  to  bring  back  these  revolted  States.  The  member  from  the 
second  district  of  Ohio  is  opposed,  in  the  first  place,  to  all  further  prose 
cution  of  the  war ;  in  the  second  place,  he  holds  that  all  compromise  is 
impossible  ;  and  in  the  third  place,  he  declares  openly  in  favor  of  throw 
ing  up  the  white  flag  and  acknoAvledging  that  they  have  conquered  us  and 
are  independent,  and  that  we  will  call  back  our  armies  and  make  no  at 
tempt,  either  by  conference  or  by  war,  to  restore  the  Union.  There  is 
the  difference. 

Mr.  THATER.  I  wish  to  make  a  statement.  I  am  sure  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  will  not  object. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  will  yield  to  the  gentleman  one  moment. 

Mr.  THAYER.  I  simply  wish  to  remind  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
that  my  colleague  to  whom  he  has  referred  [Mr.  STEYENS]  is  not  in  his 
seat,  being  detained  therefrom  by  sickness.  I  think,  therefore,  it  is  better 
not  to  indulge  in  these  remarks  in  regard  to  him  in  his  absence. 

Mr.  Cox.  Oh !  Mr.  Speaker,  the  remarks  of  the  distinguished  gen 
tleman  from  Pennsylvania  are  as  well  known  as  his  great  capacity.  They 
are  printed.  I  will  do  him  no  injustice,  but  quote  them  here  : 

"  It  is,  however,  essential  to  ascertain  what  relation  the  seceded  States  bear  to  the 
United  States,  that  we  may  know  how  to  deal  with  them  in  reestablishing  the  national 
Government.  There  seems  to  be  great  confusion  of  ideas  and  diversity  of  opinion  on  that 
subject.  Some  think  that  those  States  are  still  in  the  Union  and  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  that  they,  notwithstanding  all  they 
have  done,  may  at  any  time,  without  any  legislation,  come  back,  send  Senators  and  Repre 
sentatives  to  Congress,  and  enjoy  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  loyal  members  of  the 
United  States.  That  whenever  those  '  wayward  sisters '  choose  to  abandon  their  frivoli 
ties  and  present  themselves  at  the  door  of  the  Union  and  demand  admission,  we  must  re 
ceive  them  with  open  arms,  and  throw  over  them  the  protecting  shield  of  the  Union,  of 
which  it  is  said  they  had  never  ceased  to  be  members.  Others  hold  that,  having  com 
mitted  treason,  renounced  their  allegiance  to  the  Union,  discarded  its  Constitution  and 
laws,  organized  a  distinct  and  hostile  Government,  and  by  force  of  arms  having  risen  from 


92  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGEESS. 

the  condition  of  insurgents  to  the  position  of  an  independent  Power  de  facto,  and  having 
been  acknowledged  as  a  belligerent  both  by  foreign  nations  and  our  own  Government,  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  Union  are  abrogated  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  and  that, 
as  between  the  two  belligerents,  they  are  under  the  laws  of  war  and  the  laws  of  nations 
alone,  and  that  whichever  Power  conquers  may  treat  the  vanquished  as  conquered  prov 
inces,  and  may  impose  upon  them  such  conditions  and  laws  as  it  may  deem  best." 

Again  he  says : 

"  Is  the  present  contest  to  be  regarded  as  a  public  war,  and  to  be  governed  by  the 
rules  of  civilized  warfare,  or  only  as  a  domestic  insurrection,  to  be  suppressed  by  criminal 
prosecutions  before  the  courts  of  the  country  ?  " 

I  need  not  tell  the  House  how  the  member  from  Pennsylvania  answered 
this  question.  He  founded  upon  it  his  argument  in  favor  of  confiscation 
by  the  laws  of  nations  and  of  war.  He  quoted  from  Judge  Grier  to 
prove  the  war  a  public  Avar,  and  not  a  domestic  insurrection.  He  con 
structed  an  argument  to  show  that  this  was  not  a  contest  with  individu 
als,  but  with  States,  known  under  the  name  of  the  "  Confederate  States." 
He  held  it  to  be  idle  to  regard  individuals  as  making  war.  "  War  is 
made,"  said  he,  "  by  chartered  or  corporate  communities,  by  nations  or 
States." 

"When  an  insurrection  becomes  sufficiently  formidable  to  entitle  the  party  to  belliger 
ent  rights,  it  places  the  contending  Powers  on  precisely  the  same  footing  as  foreign  na 
tions  at  war  with  each  other."  *  *  *  "No  one  acquainted  with  the  magnitude  of 
this  contest  can  deny  to  it  the  character  of  a  civil  war.  For  nearly  three  years  the  Con 
federate  States  have  maintained  their  declaration  of  independence  by  force  of  arms."  *  * 
"What,  then,  is  the  effect  of  this  public  war  between  these  belligerent,  these  foreign  na 
tions  ?  Before  this  war  the  parties  were  bound  together  by  a  compact,  by  a  treaty  called 
a  'Constitution.'  They  acknowledged  the  validity  of  municipal  laws  mutually  binding  on 
each.  This  war  has  cut  asunder  all  these  ligaments,  abrogated  all  the  obligations." 

"  What,  then,  is  the  effect  of  this  public  war,  between  these  belligerent, 
these  foreign  nations  f  "  Foreign  nations  !  Foreign  ?  Why  ?  Because 
not  under  our  Constitution,  but  alien  from  it  by  the  maintenance  of  their 
independence  by  force  of  arms.  Nations?  Having  all  the  autonomy 
and  independence  of  a  belligerent  Power  in  Europe.  Yet  for  these  sen 
timents,  who  had  the  courage  to  question,  censure,  or  propose  to  expel 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania?  Ah  !  he  is  a  Republican,  and  has  a 
dispensation  from  the  higher  powers  to  recognize  by  his  logic  (which  my 
colleague  unhappily  followed)  the  existence  of  the  South  as  a  separate 
nation.  He  is  the  leader  of  that  side  of  the  House,  and  may  debate 
without  question  these  momentous  issues.  My  colleague  followed  him  in 
his  premises,  although  he  drew  another  conclusion. 

Now,  I  ask  my  colleague  [Mr.  GARFIELD]  whether  he  did  not  vote 
for  a  gentleman  in  Ohio  for  Lieutenant-Governor  who  held  the  same 
doctrine  of  recognizing  the  southern  confederacy?  I  refer  to  Lieutenant- 
Governor  Stanton,  who  announced  that  doctrine  on  this  floor.  He  never 
was  expelled  for  it.  No  one  sought  then  to  abridge  his  free  debate.  I 
heard  his  remarks.  I  will  send  them  up  to  be  read  before  my  colleague 
answers  the  question. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me,  they  can  as  well  be 
read  afterwards. 

Mr.  Cox.     Let  them  be  read  now. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows  : 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NOETH.  93 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  when  there  were  fifteen  slaveholtling  States  acknowledging  allegiance  to 
the  Federal  Government,  and  therefore,  having  in  their  hands  the  power  to  protect  them 
selves  against  any  invasion  of  their  rights  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government,  it  was 
a  matter  of  very  little  consequence  whether  such  an  amendment  as  that  was  incorporated 
in  the  Constitution  or  not.  But  the  state  of  the  country  is  now  radically  and  essentially 
changed.  Seven  or  eight  States  now  deny  their  allegiance  to  this  Government,  have  or 
ganized  a  separate  confederacy,  and  have  declared  their  independence  of  this  Govern 
ment.  Whether  that  independence  is  to  be  maintained  or  not  is  with  the  future.  If  they 
shall  maintain  their  position,  and  sustain  the  authorities  there  for  a  year  or  two  to  come, 
so  as  to  show  that  nothing  but  a  war  of  subjugation  and  conquest  can  bring  them  back, 
I,  for  one,  am  disposed  to  recognize  that  independence." — Congressional  Globe.  February 
23,  1861,  page  1285. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  now  yield  to  my  colleague  to  say  whether  he  did 
not  vote  for  that  man  as  Lieut enant-Governor  of  Ohio,  after  it  was  known 
throughout  the  State  that  he  thus  favored  the  independence  of  this  con 
federacy  ? 

Mr.  GAKFIELD.  I  answer  my  colleague  that  I  did  not  vote  for  that 
gentleman  nor  for  any  candidate  on  the  ticket  that  fall,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  I  was  in  the  army.  If  I  had  been  in  Ohio,  I  should  have  voted 
for  that  gentleman,  and  I  do  not  excuse  myself  on  any  other  ground  than 
the  simple  lack  of  being  present  at  the  time  of  the  election. 

!Now,  allow  me  to  say  that  there  was  a  large  class  of  men  on  both 
sides  of  the  political  questions  of  that  day  who  in  the  beginning  of  this 
war  felt  a  doubt  whether  it  was  not  better  to  let  these  people  alone  for  a 
time,  hoping  that  reason  might  return  to  them  by  delay.  There  were  others 
who  said  "  we  cannot  leave  them  alone  ;"  and  to  that  class  belonged  a 
number  of  distinguished  gentlemen  in  the  parties  on  both  sides.  That  is 
one  thing.  But  now,  after  that  question  has  been  adjudicated,  after  the 
great  American  people  have  determined  on  war  and  determined  on  putting 
clown  the  rebellion,  after  three  years  of  war  have  passed,  and  \vhen  we 
are  almost  in  the  hour  of  daylight  and  victory,  to  arise  now  and  throw 
up  the  contest  is  treason. 

Mr.*  Cox.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  only  asked  the  gentleman  to  answer  my 
question,  not  to  go  oft'  into  a  definition  of  what  is  treason  in  his  judgment. 
I  would  rather  take  the  constitutional  definition  of  treason.  I  do  not 
think  my  friend  takes  the  Constitution  as  his  authority,  for  he  has  said 
twice  on  this  floor  that  he  would  overleap  that  Constitution.  When  you 
talk  of  treason,  and  in  the  same  breath  talk  of  overleaping  the  Constitu 
tion,  you  are  the  traitor,  if  there  be  such  a  traitor  in  this  House. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  me  what  question  it  is  that 
he  desires  I  shall  answer? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  ask  the  gentleman  any  more  questions.  I  am 
satisfied  with  his  position.  It  is  enough  that  I  have  shown  that  he  is  not 
the  man  to  vote  for  the  expulsion  of  any  member  for  expressing  sentiments 
in  favor  of  the  recognition  of  this  southern  confederacy.  It  is  not  for  him 
who  would  have  voted  for  a  man  who  was  in  favor,  in  advance  of  war,  of 
the  recognition  of  the  southern  confederacy,  and  who  thus  encouraged 
the  rebels  to  proceed  in  their  rebellion  when  it  was  in  its  bud,  to  reflect 
upon  gentlemen  on  this  side  of  the  House  who  have  voted  against  seces 
sion,  against  recognition,  and  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  war  for  the  Union 
upon  the  proper  policy.  It  is  not  for  him  to  censure  or  expel  my  col 
league,  wrhen  he  has  declared  that  he  himself  would  in  some  cases  over 
leap  the  Constitution. 


94:  EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  only  desire  to  say  that  my  colleague  misrepresents 
me,  I  presume  unintentionally,  when  he  says  that  I  have  on  two  distinct 
occasions  declared  my  readiness  to  overleap  the  Constitution.  That  I 
may  set  myself  and  him  right  on  that  question,  I  will  say,  once  for  all, 
that  I  have  never  uttered  such  a  sentiment.  What  I  have  uttered  is  this : 
When  asked  if  I  would,  under  any  circumstances,  override  the  Constitution, 
I  said  this,  and  this  only — premising,  as  I  believed,  that  the  Constitution 
was  ample  enough  of  itself  to  put  down  this  rebellion,  that  its  powers  were 
most  capacious,  and  there  was  no  need  to  override  it — that  if  such  a  time 
ever  should  come  that  the  powers  of  the  Constitution  were  not  sufficient 
to  sustain  the  Union,  if  that  impossible  supposition  should  ever  prove  true 
[laughter  from  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House],  then  I  would  say  that 
we  have  a  right  to  do  our  solemn  duty  under  God,  and  go  beyond  the 
Constitution  to  save  the  creators  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  informed  by  the  members  around  me,  and  the  re 
port  of  my  colleague's  remarks  in  the  Globe  will  show,  that  he  put  no  con 
dition  like  that  which  he  makes  now.  I  ask  gentlemen  on  both  sides, 
whether  my  colleague  ever  qualified  his  remarks  by  saying,  that  it  would 
be  forever  impossible  in  the  future  for  the  Constitution  to  be  infringed  by 
making  war.  Why  make  the  statement  of  overleaping  the  Constitution, 
if  it  be  forever  impossible  to  do  it  in  carrying  on  this  war  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     Certainly. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  said  so  in  answer  to  the  question  of  my  colleague 
now  upon  the  floor.  I  said  so,  secondly,  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois,  and  put  the  same  question  to  him.  I  explained  it  in  the  same 
way.  The  gentleman  is  at  liberty  to  look  at  the  manuscript,  which  I  have 
not  yet  seen,  and  may  quote  from  it. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  only  the  Chronicle's  report  of  the  debate  of  yester 
day.  Perhaps  it  is  good  authority  for  the  members  on  the  other  side.  I 
will  quote  from  its  report : 

"  Mr.  GARFIELD  then  controverted  his  colleague's  position.  The  issue  was  now  made 
up.  We  should  use  the  common  weapons  of  war.  If  with  these  we  should  not  succeed, 
he  would  take  means,  as  he  would  against  the  savage  who  attacked  himself  or  family. 
He  would  resort  to  any  element  of  destruction,  and,  if  necessary,  he  would  fling  all  con 
stitutional  sanctions  to  the  winds  rather  than  lose  his  country." 

There  is  nothing  about  the  impossibility  of  the  Constitution  proving 
insufficient  to  put  down  the  rebellion,  and  in  which  case  alone  he  would 
overleap  it.  Overleap  an  impossibility !  I  would  like  to  see  the  per 
formance. 

Another  question.  I  remember  that  my  colleague,  on  the  confiscation 
bill,  said  that  he  would  under  certain  circumstances  overleap  the  Constitu 
tion.  What  did  he  mean  then  by  that  ?  In  that  debate  his  language  was 
precisely  this : 

"  I  would  not  break  the  Constitution  at  all,  unless  it  should  become  necessary  to  over 
leap  its  barriers  to  save  the  Government  and  the  Union." 

Nothing  about  the  impossibility  of  ever  breaking  the  Constitution,  not 
a  word  or  syllable,  for  he  contemplates  its  breach  for  certain  purposes. 
My  colleague  cannot  escape  from  the  dilemma  in  which  he  is  placed. 
And  yet  he  undertakes  to  make  political  capital  out  of  the  speech  of  my 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  95 

colleague  from  the  second  district,  after  such  declarations  !  If  he  does  not, 
gentlemen  on  that  side  of  the  House  do.  They  are,  I  learn,  subscribing 
for  that  speech  by  hundreds  and  thousands  to  distribute  it  for  partisan 
purposes  ;  and  yet  they  have  advocated  the  very  heresies  upon  which  they 
ground  the  present  accusation,  and  give  them  circulation  by  sending  out 
the  speech  of  my  colleague.  I  want  it  understood  that  the  Republican 
members  who  have  favored  recognition,  and  favored  the  men  who  favored 
it,  are  now  striving  to  expel  a  member  for  the  same  license  of  speech 
which  they  have  indulged  ;  that  at  home  they  have  favored  for  high  offices 
a  public  character  who  took  ground  in  favor  of  recognizing  the  rebellion 
if  it  should  maintain  itself  "  for  a  year  or  two."  I  might  well  ask  my 
colleague,  in  view  of  his  position,  whether  he  did  not  know  what  were 
the  sentiments  of  Governor  Stanton,  when  he  would  have  voted  for  him 
if  he  had  been  at  home?  To  come  to  the  question  :  was  he  not  thus  com 
mitted  to  the  policy  of  dissolving  the  Union,  if  the  rebellion  could  sus 
tain  itself  for  a  year  or  two  ?  Then  I  ask  him,  how  much  better  is  he 
than  the  member  whom  he  seeks  to  expel?  Wherein  does  he  differ  from 
that  member  upon  this  subject  of  recognizing  lawlessness  ?  More  than 
that ;  the  Republicans  elected  a  man  Senator  from  Ohio  who  had  uttered 
the  same  sentiments,  as  the  sentiments  of  that  party.  He  is  the  per 
sonal  and  political  friend  of  my  colleague.  I  mean  Senator  WADE.  I 
will  send  his  remarks  to  the  Clerk's  desk  to  be  read,  that  we  may  know 
who  are  in  favor  of  dissolution  and  recognition. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows,  from  the  Congressional  Globe  of  the  third 
session  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  page  25  : 

"  But  southern  gentlemen  stand  here,  and,  in  almost  all  their  speeches,  speak  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  as  an  element  of  every  argument,  as  though  it  were  a  peculiar 
condescension  on  their  part  that  they  permitted  the  Union  to  stand  at  all.  If  they  do  not 
feel  interested  in  upholding  this  Union,  if  it  really  trenches  on  their  rights,  if  it  endangers 
their  institutions  to  such  an  extent  that  they  cannot  feel  secure  under  it,  if  their  interests 
arc  violently  assailed  by  means  of  this  Union,  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  expect  that 
they  will  long  continue  under  it.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  would  ask  them  to  continue 
in  such  a  Union.  It  would  be  doing  violence  to  the  platform  of  the  party  to  which  I  be 
long.  We  have  adopted  the  old  Declaration  of  Independence  as  the  basis  of  our  political 
movement,  which  declares  that  any  people,  when  their  Government  ceases  to  protect  their 
rights,  when  it  is  so  subverted  from  the  true  purposes  of  government  as  to  oppress  them, 
have  the  right  to  recur  to  fundamental  principles,  and,  if  need  be,  to  destroy  the  Govern 
ment  under  ivhich  they  live,  and  to  erect  on  its  ruins  another  more  conducive  to  their  wel 
fare.  I  hold  that  they  have  this  right.  I  will  not  blame  any  people  for  exercising  it, 
whenever  they  think  the  contingency  has  come.  You  cannot  forcibly  hold  men  in  this 
Union  ;  for  the  attempt  to  do  so,  it  seems  to  me,  would  subvert  the  first  principles  of  the 
Government  under  which  we  live." 

Mr.  Cox.  Now,  there  is  the  broadest  doctrine  laid  down  in  favor  of 
the  right  of  revolution  and  against  the  right  of  coercion.  "  It  would  be 
doing  violence  to  the  platform  of  the  party  to  which  I  belong,"  says  the 
Republican  leader  of  Ohio,  *'  to  ask  the  South  to  continue  in  such  a 
Union."  "  You  cannot  forcibly  hold  men  in  this  Union  ;  it  would  subvert 
the  first  principles  of  the  Government."  Ah  !  you  reflected  him  Senator 
after  those  avowals,  and  now  would  you  expel  men  for  the  same  avowals? 
If  they  are  treason  in  a  Representative,  what  are  they  in  a  Senator?  I 
ask  my  colleague  if  he  did  not  sustain  that  Senator?  Did  he  not  vote 
for  hiin  for  Seaator,  or  would  he  not  have  voted  for  him  ? 


96  EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  had  not  the  pleasure  of  voting  for  the  distinguished 
Senator  from  Northern  Ohio,  but  it  would  have  given  me  great  pleasure, 
and  had  I  had  that  privilege  I  should  have  enjoyed  it  and  acted  upon  it. 

Mr.  Cox.     Does  the  gentleman  approve  of  Senator  WADE'S  doctrine  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a  moment? 

Mr.  Cox.     With  great  pleasure. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     I  wish  to  send  to  the  desk,  to  be  read — 

[Cries  of  "No!"  "No!"] 

Sir.  Cox.  If  it  does  not  come  out  of  my  time  I  will  not  object. 
[Cries  of  "Well!"  "Well!"  and  "No!"  "No!"] 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     I  recall  the  paper. 

Mr.  Cox.     Will  the  gentleman  indicate  what  it  is  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  will  only  say  in  reference  to  this  colloquy,  that  if  I 
cannot  make  my  part  of  the  colloquy  as  I  choose,  I  will  make  it  when 
the  gentleman  has  concluded  his  remarks. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  can  have  the  paper  read  if  he  pleases.  I 
shrink  from  no  responsibility  in  this  debate. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  desire  to  have  read  an  authority  which  the  gentle 
man  himself,  I  think,  acknowledges.  It  is  upon  the  same  point  that  has 
just  been  in  debate  between  us,  and  when  it  is  read  I  have  only  a  word 
to  say. 

Mr.  Cox.     Who  is  the  authority  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     Thomas  Jefferson. 

The  Clerk  then  read  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Jefferson,  in  a  letter  to  J.  B.  Colvin,  September  20,  1810,  says : 

"The  question  you  propose,  whether  circumstances  do  not  sometimes  occur  which 
make  it  a  duty  in  officers  of  high  trust  to  assume  authorities  beyond  the  law,  is  easy  of 
solution  in  principle,  but  sometimes  embarrassing  in  practice.  A  strict  observance  of  the 
written  laws  is  doubtless  one  of  the  highest  duties  of  a  good  citizen,  but  it  is  not  the 
highest.  The  laws  of  necessity,  of  self-preservation,  of  saving  our  country  when  in  dan 
ger,  are  of  higher  obligation.  To  lose  our  country  by  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  written 
law  would  be  to  lose  the  law  itself,  with  life,  liberty,  property,  and  all  those  who  are  en 
joying  them  with  us ;  thus  absolutely  sacrificing  the  end  to  the  means." — Jefferson's 
Works,  vol.  5,  p.  542. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  have  only  to  state  that  that  paper  states,  more  ably 
and  more  eloquently  than  I  can,  the  very  doctrine  which  I  have  uttered, 
and  for  which  the  gentleman  condemns  me. 

Mr.  Cox.  Now,  I  do  not  know  as  to  the  authenticity  of  that  quota 
tion  presented  by  the  gentleman  ;  but  if  the  gentleman  quotes  it  for  the 
purpose  of  vindicating  the  lawlessness  against  the  United  States  authori 
ties  which  has  been  rampant  in  that  part  of  Ohio  where  he  lives,  just  as  it 
was  prevalent  in  South  Carolina,  I  doubt  if  Jefferson  would  have  sanc 
tioned  such  a  pernicious  and  disorganizing  practice.  I  know  the  gentle 
man  and  his  party  are  in  favor  of  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution,  or 
the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  when,  in  their  opinion,  those  laws 
impinge  upon  their  consciences.  But  I  deny  all  such  seditious  and  anar 
chical  doctrine.  Notwithstanding  every  authority,  whether  it  be  from 
Jefferson,  Wade,  or  my  colleague,  I  deny  utterly  the  right  of  any  one,  se 
cessionist  or  abolitionist,  to  infract  or  nullify  any  law  of  the  United  States 
or  any  clause  of  its  Constitution,  for  any  purpose.  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws  everywhere  equally  upon  every  citizen  of  the 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NOETII.  97 

United  States.  But  my  colleague  takes  the  other  ground,  and  quotes  Jef 
ferson  to  sustain  it.  But  with  such  a  lawless  programme  how  can  he 
vote  for  the  expulsion  of  my  friend  from  Ohio  because,  as  it  is  alleged,  he 
maintained  the  same  principle?  How  can  a  defender  of  law-breakers 
expel  another  for  recognizing  the  breach  of  the  very  fundamental  law  of 
the  Union  ? 

But  I  asked  my  colleague  a  question  to  which  he  did  not  respond.  It 
was  whether  he  was  in  favor  of  the  sentiments  of  Senator  Wade  in  refer 
ence  to  the  right  of  revolution  and  against  coercion.  He  said  he  would 
have  voted  for  him.  Where  does  that  place  my  colleague  ?  In  the  cate 
gory  of  my  friend  from  Cincinnati,  according  to  the  allegation.  How, 
then,  can  my  colleague  vote  for  the  expulsion  of  a  man  who  agrees  with 
him  and  with  his  Senator  ;  and  who  agrees  with  another  and  the  principal 
light  of  the  Republican  party  ?  Horace  Greeley  in  his  paper  states  what  I 
will  send  to  the  Clerk  to  be  read  for  the  information  of  the  gentleman. 

The  Clerk  read  the  following  from  the  New  York  Tribune  of  the  2d 
of  March,  1861: 

"We  have  repeatedly  said,  and  we  once  more  insist,  that  the  great  principle  embodied 
by  Jefferson  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  Governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  is  sound  and  just ;  and  that,  if  the  slave  States, 
the  cotton  States,  or  the  Gulf  States  only,  choose  to  form  an  independent  nation,  they  have 
a  moral  right  to  do  so  !  " 

Mr.  Cox.  Now,  I  ask  my  colleague  whether  he  favors  that  doctrine 
of  Horace  Greeley?  He  has  been  hitherto  very  prompt  to  answer.  I 
have  given  him  every  chance.  I  ask  my  colleague  whether  he  believes 
in  that  "  moral  right  of  the  Gulf  or  cotton  States  to  make  an  independent 
nation  "  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  answer  the  gentleman,  if 
he  will  proceed  with  his  own  remarks,  and  I  can  then  get  the  floor.  I 
would  prefer  to  answer  him  categorically  then. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  give  the  gentleman  a  chance  to  answer  as  I  go 
along.  It  is  so  much  more  interesting.  I  like  that  dramatic  and  viva 
cious  form  of  debate.  My  colleague  is  so  apt  and  ready  in  debate. 

Mr.  GAKFIELD.     I  prefer  to  wrait  until  the  gentleman  is  through. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  afraid  people  will  draw  a  wrong  conclusion  from  my 
colleague's  refusal  to  answer.  He  may  not  get  a  chance  to  answer  to 
day.  But  as  he  seems  unwilling,  I  ask  the  privilege  of  printing  a  few 
more  extracts  from  the  great  editorial  light  of  his  party,  Mr.  Greeley,  in 
reference  to  letting  the  southern  States  go.  Nobody  ever  attempted  to 
expel  him  out  of  the  Republican  party  for  such  sentiments. 

"If  the  cotton  States  shall  become  satisfied  that  they  can  do  better  out  of  the  Union 
than  in  it,  we  insist  on  the  letting  them  go  in  peace.  The  right  to  secede  may  be  a  rev 
olutionary  one,  but  it  exists  nevertheless."  *  *  "  We  musi  ever  resist  the  right 
of  any  State  to  remain  in  the  Union  and  nullify  or  defy  the  laws  thereof.  To  withdraw 
from  the  Union  is  quite  another  "matter;  whenever  a  considerable  section  of  our  Union 
shall  deliberately  resolve  to  go  out,  we  shall  resist  all  coercive  measures  designed  to  keep 
it  in.  We  hope  never  to  live  in  a  republic  whereof  one  section  is  pinned  to  another  by 
bayonets." — Tribune  of  November  9,  1860. 

"  If  the  cotton  States  unitedly  and  earnestly  wish  to  withdraw  peacefully  from  the 
Union,  we  think  they  should  and  would  be  allowed  to  do  so.  Any  attempt  to  compel 
them  by  force  to  remain  would  be  contrary  to  the  principles  enunciated  in  the  immortal 
7 


yo  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGBESS. 

Declaration  of  Independence ;  contrary  to  the  fundamental  ideas  on  which  human  liberty 
is  based." — Tribune,  November  26,  1860. 

"  If  it  (the  Declaration  of  Independence)  justified  the  secession  from  the  British  Em 
pire  of  three  million  colonists  in  1776,  we  do  not  see  why  it  would  not  justify  the  secession 
of  five  millions  southrons  from  the  Union  in  1801." — Tribune,  December  17,  1860. 

"  Whenever  it  shall  be  clear  that  the  great  body  of  the  southern  people  have  become 
.  conclusively  alienated  from  the  Union,  and  anxious  to  escape  from  it,  we  will  do  our  best 
to  forward  their  views." — Tribune,  February  23,  1861. 

Can  it  be  possible  that  such  opinions  have  been  uttered  and  the  paper 
not  suppressed?  Can  it  be  that  members  who  read  it  approvingly,  day 
by  day,  seek  to  expel  a  member  of  this  House  for  copying  its  worst  feat 
ures  ?  Why  was  not  the  Constitution  "  overleaped  "  to  suppress  that  jour 
nal  and  exile  its  editor?  Gentlemen  opposite  take  this  journal  and  swear 
by  it  as  the  gospel  of  emancipation  and  the  exponent  of  Republican  policy. 
They  cannot  get  along  without  it.  Why,  then,  are  they  so  sensitive  when 
it  is  alleged  that  a  Democrat  is  going  in  the  direction  pointed  out  by  their 
own  shining  beacon  ? 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  need  not  ask  my  colleague  whether  he  voted  for  Abra 
ham  Lincoln  for  President.  I  know  that  so  far  as  the  past  is  concerned 
he  is  committed  to  Mr.  Lincoln  and  to  his  record  and  sentiments.  I  pro 
pose  to  have  read,  for  the  information  of  my  colleague,  an  extract  from  a 
speech  made  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  Congress,  on  the  14th  of  February,  1848, 
and  printed  by  Gideon  &  Co.  especially  for  circulation  among  such  gen 
tlemen  as  my  colleague.  Here  is  the  extract,  and  to  it  I  solicit  his  atten 
tion.  I  ask  him  if  he  approves  of  the  doctrine.  If  he  does,  he  cannot 
consistently  vote  for  the  expulsion  of  my  colleague.  The  Clerk  will  read 
from  the  original  and  genuine  document. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows,  from  the  pamphlet : 

"Any  people,  anywhere,  being  inclined  and  having  the  power,  have  a  right  to  rise  up 
and  shake  off  the  existing  Government  and  form  a  new  one  that  suits  them  better." 

Mr.  Cox.  I  may  be  allowed',  before  the  Clerk  reads  any  further,  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  distinguished  Speaker  to  that  extract.  He  voted 
for  Mr.  Lincoln.  Nobody  knows  whether  he  is  for  him  or  not  now. 
[Laughter.]  I  want  to  ask  him  whether  he  approves  of  the  doctrine. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows  : 

"  This  is  a  most  valuable,  a  most  sacred  right,  a  right  which  we  hope  and  believe  is  to 
liberate  the  world.  Nor  is  this  right  confined  to  cases  in  which  the  whole  people  of  an 
existing  Government  may  choose  to  exercise  it.  Any  portion  of  such  a  people  that  can, 
may  revolutionize  and  may  make  their  own  so  much  of  the  territory  as  they  inhabit. 
More  than  this,  a  majority  of  any  portion  of  such  people  may  revolutionize,  putting 
down  a  minority  intermingled  with  or  near  about  them  who  may  oppose  their  move 
ments." 

Mr.  Cox.  I  get  no  response  from  the  Speaker.  He  must  approve  of 
the  revolutionary  sentiments  of  the  President,  and  be  disgusted  with  his 
own  resolution  of  expulsion.  Perhaps  he  witl  move  to  lay  his  resolution 
upon  the  table,  or  else  vote  to  impeach  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Mr.  COLFAX.  In  reply  to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio, 
I  have  to  repeat  that  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  upon  this  side  of  the 
House  does  not  speak  in  the  midst  of  another  gentleman's  speech  by  his 
courtesy,  liable  to  be  stopped  by  him  as  the  gentleman  stopped  his  col- 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NOKTII.  99 

league  recently.     He  speaks  when  he  obtains  the  floor,  and  has  no  secret 
about  his  opinions  in  regard  to  any  subject. 

Mr.  Cox.  Oh  !  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the  leading  man  of  this  House 
comes  down  from  his  high  position  to  offer  a  resolution  to  expel  a  mem 
ber  who  comes  here  by  the  same  right  that  he  does,  he  cannot  escape  on 
account  of  his  peculiar  dignity.  When  he  descends  to  this  floor,  the  com 
mon  platform  of  us  all,  and  condescends  to  mingle  with  us  in  debate,  he 
cannot  and  shall  not  escape.  Is  he  or  is  he  not  in  favor  of  the  doctrine 
laid  down  by  the  President  in  the  extracts  which  have  been  read  ?  That 
is  a  very  simple  question.  You  will  lose  no  dignity,  sir,  by  answering  it 
now.  [Laughter.]  We  will  look  upon  you  with  pride  and  pleasure  as 
the  Speaker  of  this  House,  if  you  will  condescend  to  delight  us  by  evincing 
your  opinion  upon  that  subject.  I  pledge  myself  that  you  shall  not  be  inter 
rupted. 

Mr.  COLFAX.  In  reply  only  to  the  personal  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio,  I  say  this  to  him :  that  when  I  appear  upon  this  floor,  I  do 
not  condescend  from  that  chair.  The  position  of  a  member  upon  this  floor 
is  as  exalted  and  responsible  as  the  position  of  him  who  sits  in  that  chair 
to  administer  your  rules'.  The  gentleman  brings  a  reproach  upon  himself 
and  upon  his  fellow-members  upon  this  floor  when  he  sneers  at  me  and 
speaks  of  me,  when  I  appear  upon  this  floor  as  the  representative  of  my 
constituents,  performing  my  duty,  as  condescending.  The  highest  position 
a  man  can  hold  in  this  House  is  that  of  a  representative  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  people,  sent  here  by  their  willing  votes,  and  not  by  a 
mere  majority  of  votes  elected  here  as  the  presiding  officer  of  this  body. 

Mr.  Cox.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not  make  any  personal  remarks  in  re 
gard  to  my  distinguished  friend.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  throw  any  stain 
upon  him  for  his  condescension.  I  admire  him  too  much  for  his  fairness 
and  justice  in  presiding  over  our  deliberations  to  reproach  him.  Never 
has  he  heard  a  word  of  that  kind  from  me.  But  when  he  comes  down 
from  his  exaltation  to  this  floor  and  undertakes  to  engineer  a  resolution 
through  this  House  for  the  expulsion  of  a  brother  member,  he  must  take 
the  consequences  of  the  debate  which  he  inaugurates. 

Mr.  COLFAX.     I  am  willing  to  do  so,  perfectly  willing. 

Mr.  Cox.  My  friend  does  not  seem  now  to  be  willing  to  do  it.  He 
shall  not  be  interrupted  if  he  answers,  whether  he  stands  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
or  not  in  the  sentiments  which  I  read  from  liis  speech.  I  am  opposed  to 
all  such  sentiments,  opposed  to  secession,  opposed  to  revolution,  and  op 
posed  to  any  change  of  our  Government,  except  in  pursuance  of  the  Con 
stitution,  by  the  amendment  thereof.  That  is  the  position  of  the  mem 
bers  on  this  side.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  was  elevated  to  the  Presidency  by 
that  lawless  party  on  the  other  side,  knowing  his  sentiments  to  be  in  favor 
of  secession  and  revolution,  in  favor  of  "  any  portion  of  the  people  that 
can,  revolutionizing  and  making  their  own  so  much  of  the  territory  as 
they  inhabit."  I  ask  gentleman,  if  my  colleague  deserves  expulsion,  does 
not  the  President  deserve  impeachment  ? 

But  if  gentlemen  say  these  questions  are  gone  by,  then  I  come  to  the 
condition  of  things  since  the  war,  and  press  the  question  which  was  not 
answered,  why  did  you  not  expel  Mr.  Conway  last  Congress  ?  I  receive 
no  reply.  I  now  ask,  why  not  expel  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  Ju- 


100  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

LIAN],  the  colleague  of  the  Speaker,  for  his  speech  on  the  homestead  law, 
wherein  he  expressed  sentiments  which,  if  carried  out,  would  bring  about 
in  the  North  the  very  convulsion  and  anarchy  which  we  now  unhappily 
have  in  the  South.  The  gentleman  from  Indiana,  on  the  18th  of  March, 
1864,  held  these  sentiments  : 

"  Congress  must  repeal  the  joint  resolution  of  last  year  which  protects  the  fee  of  rebel 
landholders.  The  President,  as  I  am  well  advised,  now  stands  ready  to  join  us  in  such 
action.  Should  we  fail  to  do  this,  the  courts  must  so  interpret  the  joint  resolution  as  to 
make  its  repeal  needless.  Should  both  Congress  and  the  courts  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
nation's  life,  then  '  the  red  lightning  of  the  people's  wrath  '  must  consume  the  recreant 
men  who  refuse  to  execute  the  popular  will.  Our  country,  united  and  free,  must  be  saved, 
at  whatever  hazard  or  cost ;  and  nothing,  not  even  cne  Constitution,  must  be  allowed  to 
hold  back  the  uplifted  arm  of  the  Government  in  blasting  the  power  of  the  rebels 
forever" 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  on  this  side  of  the  House,  in  our  simplicity, 
were  taught  last  session  of  Congress  by  a  patriotic  and  learned  member 
of  the  opposite  party  from  Massachusetts  [Judge  THOMAS],  that  there 
could  be  no  Union  without  the  Constitution  ;  that  there  could  be  no  war 
carried  on  except  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution ;  that  in  using  the  ap 
pliances  for  subduing  the  rebellion  we  are  acting  within  the  pale  of  the 
Constitution ;  that  we  seek  domestic  tranquillity  alone  by  the  sword  the 
Constitution  has  placed  in  our  hands  ;  that  in  the  path  of  war,  as  of  peace, 
the  Constitution  is  our  guide  and  our  light,  the  cloud  by  day,  the  pillar  of 
fire  by  night ;  that  in  preserving  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  we  vin 
dicate  in  every  part  the  indivisible  Republic  in  its  supreme  law ;  that  in 
seeking  to  change  the  Constitution,  to  break  or  overleap  it,  we  become  the 
rebels  we  are  striving  to  subdue  ;  that  all  our  labors  and  sacrifices  for  the 
Union  of  our  fathers  are  for  the  Constitution,  which  is  its  only  bond  ;  that 
to  make  this  a  war,  with  a  sword  in  the  one  hand  to  defend  the  Constitution, 
and  a  hammer  in  the  other  hand  to  break  it  to  pieces,  is  no  less  treasona 
ble  than  secession  itself;  and  that  outside  of  the  pale  of  the  Constitution 
the  whole  struggle  is  revolutionary. 

If  these  sentiments  be  true,  sir,  and  no  one  will  question  them,  why 
was  not  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  JULIAN]  expelled  for  the  treason 
able  sentiments  I  have  quoted  ?  Why  was  not  a  similar  resolution  to  this 
moved  in  relation  to  him  ?  We  on  this  side  do  not  do  it.  We  are  in  favor 
of  the  largest  liberty  of  debate  by  Representatives.  We  understand  that 
the  Constitution  guarantees  such  debate.  We  did  not  disturb  your  Judge 
Conway  last  session  for  his  resolutions.  We  did  not  vote  for  his  resolu 
tions  ;  but  you  are  responsible  for  his  continuance  in  his  position  till  the 
end  of  the  last  Congress. 

If  it  were  a  reproach  to  the  country,  as  our  distinguished  Speaker 
has  stated,  that  a  man  should  express  himself  here  in  favor  of  the  recog 
nition  of  the  Southern  Confederacy ;  if  it  dishonors  and  weakens  us 
abroad  and  impairs  our  energies  and  discourages  our  efforts  at  home  ;  if 
it  were  equivalent  to  allowing  members  of  the  Richmond  congress  to 
come  here  and  take  part  in  our  deliberations  (as  the  Speaker  has  al 
leged)  ,  why  was  not  the  expulsion  of  the  member  from  Kansas  proposed 
by  him  ?  Ah  !  his  case  was  of  a  different  hue  then.  It  was  of  a  darker 
shade  then.  Now  you  are  in  favor  of  expelling  a  man  from  our  midst 
who  was  sent  here  by  the  people,  because  he  utters  the  same  sentiments 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  lOl 

which  this  side  repudiates,  and  which  one  of  your  own  side  uttered  last 
session,  and  which  you  never  sought  to  repudiate  by  the  grave  process  of 
expulsion. 

But  the  Speaker  did  not  resume  his  seat  until  he  had  made  a  fling  at 
the  Democracy  of  my  State  for  supporting  Mr.  Vallandigham.  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  took  some  part  in  the  last  contest  for  the  Governorship  of 
Ohio.  I  did  not  fully  agree  with  the  gentleman  who  is  now  in  exile,  as 
members  know,  in  his  votes  on  this  floor,  nor  in  regard  to  his  peculiar 
views  of  policy  or  peace.  I  upheld  sadly  but  firmly  the  sword,  after  it  had 
been  unsheathed,  lest  a  worse  alternative  should  ensue — the  disunion  of 
our  beloved  country. 

Mr.  JULIAN.     Will  the  gentleman  yield  to  me  for  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     Certainly. 

Mr.  JULIAN.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  read  only  a  portion  of  a 
paragraph  from  the  speech  which  I  delivered  in  this  House,  and  I  wish  he 
would  allow  me  to  have  read  at  the  desk  the  entire  paragraph  which  I 
have  marked. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  insert  in  my  speech  what  the  gentleman  desires,  but 
as  the  extension  of  my  time  is  objected  to,  I  cannot  yield  to  him.  The 
gentleman  does  not  deny  that  I  have  quoted  him  fairly  so  far  as  I  have 
gone.  Did  not  the  gentleman  say  that  he  was  in  favor  of  breaking  down 
the  Constitution  to  save  the  country? 

Mr.  JULIAN.     It  is  a  perversion  of  what  I  did  say. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  would  rather  have  it  from  your  own  lips  than  from  any 
report.  Are  you  in  favor  of  breaking  down  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  JULIAN.  I  will  answer  the  gentleman  from  Ohio.  I  said  ex 
plicitly  in  the  paragraph  of  'my  speech  which  I  have  asked  the  gentleman 
to  allow  to  be  read,  that  there  was  no  necessity  in  the  world  for  breaking 
down  the  Constitution  in  any  of  its  parts  to  put  down  the  present  rebellion 
in  the  South.  That  is  my  position.  I  said  the  Constitution  was  made 
for  the  people,  not  the  people  for  the  Constitution ;  and  that  our  fathers 
were  not  fools  but  wise  men,  who  armed  the  nation  with  the  power  to 
crush  its  foes  as  well  as  to  protect  its  friends. 

Mr.  Cox.     If  that  necessity  existed? 

Mr.  JULIAN.  If  it  were  necessary  to  save  the  life  of  the  nation  to 
depart  from  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  I  would,  as  I  said  in  my  speech, 
blast  the  power  of  the  rebellion  forcer  by  the  strong  hand  of  war. 

Mr.  Cox.  I,  too,  would  blast  the  power  of  the  rebels  by  the  strong 
hand  of  war ;  but  I  regard  the  life  of  the  nation  as  bound  up  with  the 
Constitution,  and  that  to  blast  the  Constitution  you  blast  the  Government. 
And  by  destroying  the  Constitution  you  do  not  put  an  end  to  this  war  nor 
suppress  the  rebellion. 

Mr.  JULIAN.  I  ask  the  gentleman  whether,  if  the  salvation  of  the 
nation's  life  required  the  violation  of  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  the 
gentleman  would  be  willing  to  save  the  life  of  the  nation  at  that  cost  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  regard  it  as  utterly  impossible,  under  God,  ever  to  save 
the  life  of  the  nation  by  tearing  out  its  vitals,  its  heart  and  brain.  The 
Constitution  is  the  frame  in  which  the  Government  is  enshrined.  I  know 
no  other  Government  except  that  embodied  in  the  Constitution.  ThLs  is 
the  Government  which  you  are  sworn  to  support ;  not  sworn  to  support. 


102  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

sir,  in  a  certain  emergency ;  not  sworn  to  destroy,  if  necessary  to  save 
the  life  of  the  country,  but  unconditionally  to  support  at  all  times  and  in 
all  places,  as  if  that  life  were  bound  up  with  it  forever.  You  have  taken 
upon  your  soul  the  oath  to  sustain  that  Constitution.  Now  you  say  on 
certain  conditions  you  would  break  your  oath  !  What  is  moral  treason? 
What  is  moral  perjury?  I  do  not  charge  these  upon  the  gentleman  ;  but* 
I  beg  him  to  reconsider  and  call  back  his  words. 

Mr.  JULIAN.     Will  the  gentleman  yield  to  me  right  here  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     I  will,  if  the  gentleman  thinks  I  have  done  him  injustice. 

Mr.  JULIAN.  I  have  taken  that  oath,  and  I  have  asserted  publicly  that 
there  is  no  necessity  in  the  world  for  violating  it.  But  the  gentleman  has 
not  answered  the  interrogatory  which  I  propounded  to  him.  I  wish  him 
to  state  explicitly  whether,  if  the  life  of  the  nation  could  only  be  saved  by 
a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  he  would  be  willing  to  save  it  in  that  way. 
[Laughter  on  the  Republican  side  of  the  House.] 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  answer  the  question.  I  am  used  to  laughter  from 
that  side  of  the  House.  It  does  not  distract  me,  for  laughter  is  not  logic. 
What  is  the  life  of  the  nation,  sir,  of  which  we  hear  so  much  ?  I  know 
no  other  life  of  the  nation  except  that  incarnate  in  the  written  Constitu 
tion,  which  protects  property,  person,  home,  conscience,  liberty,  and  life. 
Take  away  these,  and  there  is  no  nation.  Society  is  stagnant  and  dead. 
The  gentleman  regards  liberty  as  the  life  of  the  nation,  a  sort  of  ill-defined 
liberty  for  black  and  white,  I  suppose.  I  regard  the  Constitution  as  the 
embodiment  of  constitutional  freedom  in  this  country,  the  very  body,  life, 
and  soul  of  the  Union.  That  is  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
When  you  strike  that  down  you  strike  down  the  life  of  the  nation.  There 
fore  we,  on  this  side,  have  determined,  in  order  to  save  the  life  of  the 
Government,  to  save  the  Constitution  from  destruction. 

Mr.  JULIAN.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask  him  another 
question  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     If  the  gentleman  is  not  fully  answered,  I  will   say  this, 

THAT  UNDER  NO  CIRCUMSTANCES  CONCEIVABLE  BY  THE  HUMAN  MIND  WOULD 
I  EVER  VIOLATE  THAT  CONSTITUTION  FOR  ANY  PURPOSE.  [Cries  of 

"  That's  it !  "  "  That's  it !  "  from  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House.] 
As  Judge  Thomas  has  said,  "  I  would  cling  to  it  as  the  bond  of  unity  in 
the  past,  as  the  only  practical  bond  of  union  in  the  future  ;  the  only  land 
lifted  above  the  waters,  on  which  the  ark  of  the  Union  can  be  moored. 
From  that  ark  alone  will  go  out  the  dove,  blessed  of  the  Spirit,  which 
shall  return  bringing  in  its  mouth  the  olive-branch  of  peace."  To  com 
pass  its  destruction  as  a  probable  or  possible  necessity,  is  the  very  gospel 
of  anarchy,  the  philosophy  of  dissolution. 

If  there  be  any  man  in  this  chamber  who  holds  or  utters  any  other 
sentiment  in  reference  to  the  Constitution  and  his  oath  than  this  which  I 
have  expressed,  I  say  to  him,  that  language  has  no  term  of  reproach,  and 
the  mind  no  idea  of  detestation,  adequate  to  express  the  moral  leprosy 
and  treason  couched  in  his  language  and  clinging  to  his  soul.  I  will  not 
designate  such  utterances  by  any  harsher  language  in  a  parliamentary 
body. 

When  interrupted  by  the  member  from  Indiana,  I  was  about  to  go  a 
little  further  in  answer  to  what  the  Speaker  said  in  reference  to  the  De- 


SEDITION   IN   THE    NORTH.  103 

mocracy  of  Ohio.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  took  a  part  in  the  campaign  of  last 
year,  as  I  said,  not  because  I  approved  of  the  peculiar  peace  notions  of 
my  former  colleague.  It  was  well  known  in  Ohio,  that  my  votes  here  did  not 
always  coincide  with  his,  and  that  my  sentiments  did  not  agree  with  his 
altogether ;  but  when  by  an  arbitrary  arrest,  without  warrant,  without  a 
fair  trial,  in  defiance  of  the  Constitution,  in  defiance  of  a  law  passed  by 
ourselves,  in  defiance  of  English  and  American  traditions,  petitions,  and 
bills  of  right,  he  was  arrested  and  exiled,  the  Democracy  of  Ohio  raised 
an  issue  in  favor  of  fair  trial,  free  speech,  the  immunities  of  personal  free 
dom,  and  an  honest  and  lawful  administration  of  public  affairs.  That  was 
our  only  issue.  I  took  ground  everywhere  in  favor  of  the  liberty  of  the 
citizen  and  the  integrity  of  the  Constitution.  Disagreeing  always  with 
the  peculiar  tenets  held  by  him  in  relation  to  coercion,  I  held  that  he  had 
the  same  right  to  speak  for  peace  as  the  soldier  to  fight  for  it.  But  I  will 
say  this  for  him,  that  nowhere,  here  or  at  home,  did  he  ever  utter  a  sen 
timent  or  do  an  act  looking  to  the  recognition  of  the  southern  confederacy. 
He  said  in  his  place  in  this  House,  again  and  again,  and  cfuoted  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's  opinions  on  the  Mexican  war  in  his  justification,  that  he  would 
not  oppose  the  voting  of  men  and  money  to  carry  on  this  war,  the  responsi 
bility  for  which  he  did  not  covet  nor  bear.  But,  sir,  he  never  would  con 
sent  to  a  peace  based  upon  recognition.  He  so  said  in  the  North,  and  he 
said  the  same  in  his  exile  in  the  South. 

We  were  defeated  in  Ohio  on  account  of  the  issue  made  on  the  peace 
sentiment.  I  bowed  to  that  decision.  But,  sir,  while  there  are  some  in 
our  party  opposed  to  coercion  and  in  favor  of  a  peace  indiscriminately, 
without  regard  to  consequences,  the  great  body  of  the  Democratic  people 
in  our  State  and  in  the  North  have  never  gone  beyond  one  conclusion  ; 
and  that  is,  they  are  forever  opposed  to  curtailing  the  limits  of  our  em 
pire  by  the  recognition  of  a  new  nation  carved  out  of  our  territory  and 
made  up  of  our  States  and  people.  Come  war,  come  peace,  come  any 
thing,  we  would  bring  about  a  restoration  of  the  old  Government,  with 
the  old  order.  Our  determination  is  to  superadd  to  force  the  policy  of 
conciliation ;  not  to  withdraw  our  forces  from  the  field  and  yield  to  the 
South  independence,  but  to  superadd  one  other  element  of  union — kind 
ness  and  Christianity.  If  gentlemen  cannot  understand  how  two  such 
ideas  are  compatible  in  the  same  mind  with  each  other  and  with  patriotism, 
I  cannot  teach  them.  While  we  have  been  ever  ready  to  sustain  our 
gallant  soldiers  in  the  field  by  our  money  and  our  men,  we  have  been  also 
ready  at  every  hour  of  our  triumph  and  at  every  opportunity  for  compro- 
.  mise,  to  extend  an  honorable  amnesty  to  the  erring;  not  the  jugglery  of 
the  executive  amnesty,  based  upon  a  proclamation  of  abolition  which  is  a 
lie,  but  an  amnesty  which  shall  bring  back  the  great  body  of  the  people 
South,  if  it  be  yet  possible,  to  their  allegiance.  We  desire  to  make  our 
victories  consequential  by  the  rehabilitation  of  the  States  as  they  were,  and 
to  make  out  of  them,  and  not  out  of  illegitimate  States,  the  old  Union,  one 
and  indivisible ! 

This  is  the  policy  of  the  northern  Democracy.  We  accept  as  our 
platform  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  Upon  that  platform  we  will  never, 
in  any  emergency  of  this  Republic,  yield  up  this  country  and  its  Constitu 
tion  to  secession,  and  to  its  baleful  counterpart,  abolition.  "  Amid  all  the 


101  EIGHT  TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

darkness,  the  thick  darkness  around  us,  we  will  cling  to  the  single,  simple 
sublime  issue — the  Constitution,  a'hd  the  Union  of  which  it  is  the  bond ; 
the  old  Union.  God  bless  the  old  Union,  and  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb  of 
God  shrivel  to  their  very  sockets  the  arms  lifted  to  destroy  it ;  not  in  ven 
geance,  but  in  mercy  to  them  and  to  all  mankind." 

THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW ITS  REPEAL RIGHT  OF  ASYLUM. 

On  the  13th  of  June,  1864,  this  bill  furnished  the  last  opportunity  of 
arraigning  the  Republicans  for  their  violations  of  law  ;  but  as  the  discus 
sion  has  lost  its  interest,  that  portion  of  the  speech  is  omitted.  It  was 
mostly  an  argument  ad  hominem  against  the  members  from  Wisconsin 
and  Ohio,  who  sustained  the  infraction  of  the  fugitive  slave  law.  Some 
thing  of  a  colloquy  occurred  between  Messrs.  BALDWIN,  of  Massachusetts, 
and  ELAINE,  of  Maine,  and  the  Speaker,  as  to  the  execution  of  the  law 
in  time  of  war  and  on  black  soldiers.  The  occasion  was  seized  by  Mr. 
Cox  to  vindicate  the  right  of  asylum,  outraged  in  the  case  of  Arguelles. 


Mr.  Cox  said :  I  cannot  understand  why  these  gentlemen  would  de 
stroy  the  only  method  of  carrying  out  this  extradition  system  of  our  Con 
stitution  ;  and  yet  the  other  day,  when  a  Spanish  subject  was  arrested  by 
our  authorities,  and  taken  from  our  shores  which  he  sought  as  an  asylum, 
these  gentlemen  sustained  such  extraordinary  action.  Against  the  Con 
stitution,  without  law,  without  treaty,  without  evidence,  without  jury  trial, 
without  warrant,  without  information,  by  executive  power,  usurping  the 
treaty  power,  usurping  the  law-making  power,  usurping  the  power  of  the 
judiciary,  this  Administration  delivered  to  Spain  a  white  refugee  ;  and 
this  Congress,  with  cringing  obsequiousness,  bowed  before  executive  dic 
tation,  and  by  their  legislative  action  said,  "  All  right,  Mr.  President,  you 
can  seize  a  white  man  and  take  him  from  the  country  in  defiance  of  the 
great  right  of  asylum ;  but  when  a  black  man,  escaping  from  one  State  to 
another,  and  whom  we  are  commanded  by  the  Constitution  to  deliver  up, 
and  under  the  sanction  of  our  oath  to  make  laws  for  such  delivery,  we 
break  down  the  constitutional  clause  and  the  laws  sanctioned  by  the  ju 
diciary  in  order  to  create  in  the  North  an  asylum  for  the  blacks  of  the 
South."  When  a  white  man  from  another  nation  is  torn  away,  and  the 
practice  and  usage  of  all  free  and  civilized  nations  is  outraged,  gentlemen 
on  that  side  stifle  proper  resolutions  of  condemnation. 

Mr.  MORRIS,  of  New  York.  The  gentleman  will  allow  me  to  ask 
him  a  question  for  information.  In  the  case  referred  to  by  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio,  was  the  man  charged  with  crime  or  was  lie  not? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  say  to  my  friend  from  New  York  that  that  white  man 
was  charged  with  a  crime  in  newspapers,  by  clamor,  but  not  legally. 
There  was  no  charge,  no  warrant,  no  information,  and  no  trial.  I  defy 
gentlemen  to  give  me  a  resolution  of  inquiry,  to  ascertain  whether  the 
Executive  or  the  Secretary  of  State  had  any  thing  in  writing  but  the  request 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NORTH.  105 

of  the  Spanish  minister  upon  which  to  base  the  arrest  and  extradition  of 
this  Spaniard,  seeking  an  asylum  in  this  country.  Upon  the  request  of 
Senor  Tassara,  the  Spanish  minister,  Mr.  Seward  issued  his  rescript,  and 
the  man  was  taken  from  the  privacy  of  his  own  room,  without  the  knowl 
edge  of  his  wife,  who  was  in  the  next  chamber.  He  was  hurried  on  board 
a  steamer,  was  hurried  off  to  Havana,  and  is  there  held  as  a  criminal  to 
be  tried.  And  yet  gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  dare  not  condemn  that. 
Why?  Because  it  was  alleged  that  he  wras  engaged  in  some  way  in  the 
slave  trade.  "Well,  some  one  with  less  sense  than  sensibility  may  cry  out, 
"  Oh  !  you  are  the  defender  of  the  slave  trade  and  slave  traders."  There 
is  only  one  answer  to  this  :  the  monosyllabic  answer,  "  Pshaw."  I  de 
fend  no  crime  when  I  defend  the  right  of  asylum ;  nor  do  I  defend  sla 
very,  when  I  oppose  the  repeal  of  a  constitutional  law  for  the  rendition 
of  slaves. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  Spanish  subject,  Colonel  Arguelles,  was  en 
gaged  in  the  slave  trade,  and  hence  an  enemy  of  the  human  race.  The 
truth  is  that  he  was  not  engaged  in  that  trade.  Slaves  had  been  landed 
in  the  district  of  Colon,  in  Cuba,  under  his  jurisdiction,  and  those  slaves, 
as  it  was  alleged,  he  had  sold  after  they  were  landed  and  confiscated,  and 
having  made  money  out  of  the  transaction  in  violation  of  his  duty  he  had 
fled  to  this  country.  There  was  no  proof  of  all  this.  It  was  the  only 
allegation,  however,  and  it  may  be  true.  Suppose  it  were.  The  charge 
is  simply  that  of  a  breach  of  the  municipal  law  of  Spain.  He  is  not, 
then,  in  the  legal  sense,  as  Mr.  Seward  asserted,  an  enemy  of  the  human 
race.  He  was  not  a  pirate  in  any  legal  or  moral  sense,  but  a  criminal 
under  the  laws  of  Spain.  He  could  only  be  delivered  to  Spain  under  a 
treaty  or  a  statute,  and  neither  existed  between  this  country  and  Spain. 
Yet  gentlemen  who  are  becoming  so  careful  about  the  personal  liberty  of 
black  men  as  to  refuse  to  render  them  up  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  sustain  the  extradition  of  a  white  man  without  evidence,  law,  treaty, 
or  constitutional  authority.  If  there  were  a  treaty  between  Spain  and 
the  United  States  similar  to  this  authority  in  our  Constitution  with  regard 
to  the  rendition  of  black  fugitives,  no  indignation  would  ever  have  been 
hurled  by  a  hospitable  people,  proud  of  their  system  of  asylum  under  our 
once  free  Government,  against  its  present  perfidious  administrators.  Upon 
the  same  principle,  or  want  of  principle,  by  which  the  Executive  gave  up 
this  Spaniard,  they  would  have  surrendered  Thomas  Francis  Meagher,  a 
criminal  convicted  by  the  judicial  tyranny  of  England,  Professor  Agas- 
siz,  the  savant,  whom  the  world  delights  to  honor,  and  every  other  man 
of  great  or  little  note  who  comes  here  from  abroad. 

We  have  had  many  humiliations  since  the  present  Administration  came 
into  power.  We  have  bowed  humbly  before  the  throne  of  the  French 
usurper,  at  the  beck  of  an  arrogant  foreign  minister,  and  allowed  an  Aus 
trian  prince  and  an  imperial  dupe  to  bear  a  crown  from  Europe  to  our 
continent,  and  sway  a  sceptre  over  a  democratic  republic  with  which  we 
were  in  friendly  alliance.  We  have  had  domestic  humiliations  by  the 
forcible  abduction,  imprisonment,  and  exile  of  our  citizens  without  law  or 
trial.  We  have  had  our  very  thoughts  pinioned,  our  presses  manacled, 
and  our  writs  of  right  and  liberty  annulled.  For  all  these  we  place  our 
hands  upon  our  mouths  in  shame  ;  but  for  this  last  humiliation,  by  which 


106  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

America  is  no  longer  the  Lome  of  the  oppressed  or  the  refuge  of  the  for 
eigner,  by  which  we  are  made  the  hissing  and  byword  of  the  nations,  we 
cast  our  mouths  in  the  dust  in  abjectest  degradation.  We  are  put  to  cruel 
shame  before  all  civilized  nations,  nay,  before  even  half-civilized  nations. 

Turkey  once  protected  the  Hungarian  patriot,  Kossuth  ;  Switzerland 
protects  all  political  refugees  in  the  midst  of  Europe,  and  stands  there  in 
her  Republican  simplicity  and  faith  as  firm  as  her  everlasting  mountains 
against  the  oppressions  around  her.  We  protected  the  half-made  citizen 
Koszta  in  an  Asiatic  harbor,  and  rescued  him  from  an  Austrian  ship  ;  but 
this  was  when  we  had  a  Democrat  to  represent  us  in  our  foreign  affairs 
like  William  L.  Marcy.  But  while  this  national  Congress  stops  in  the 
midst  of  a  great  civil  war  to  sow  new  dissensions  in  our  midst  by  unwise 
legislation  like  this  for  black  fugitives,  it  has  shown  its  servile  timidity 
before  the  usurpations  of  our  Executive,  and  has  allowed  the  lettre  de  cachet 
of  the  French  monarch  to  be  reissued  under  the  great  seal  of  the  United 
States,  without  a  murmur  of  dissent  or  denunciation.  We  are  disgraced 
before  the  world  by  the  violation  of  the  great  feature  of  our  system  of 
polity.  What  new  humiliation  is  in  store  for  us  ? 

I  hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  am  not  travelling  out  of  the  range  of  proper 
discussion  by  referring  to  this  matter  of  the  extradition  of  a  foreigner  with 
out  treaty  or  law.  I  have  considered  it  fully.  I  hope  before  Congress 
adjourns  that  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  will  report  a  bill  for  the 
purpose  of  punishing  such  officers  as  dare  lay  their  hands  upon  refugees 
who  arc  here  from  countries  with  which  we  have  no  treaty,  and  in  cases 
where  there  is  no  law  for  their  delivery.  Such  refugees  have  the  right  to 
shoot  down  the  officers  who  thus  arrest  them,  and  be  entirely  innocent  of 
crime.  Refugees  under  such  circumstances  would  have  the  right  to  sue 
Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Seward,  or  the  marshal  of  New  York,  for  false  impris 
onment,  because  of  the  absence  of  all  law  and  all  treaty  in  relation  to  that 
subject. 

What  inference  do  I  draw  from  this  ?  That  in  my  opinion,  as  to  all 
matters  of  rendition,  whether  of  fugitives  from  service  or  justice,  or  of 
political  refugees,  there  is  always  some  law  required  to  carry  out  in  good 
faith  the  treaty  or  agreement  upon  those  subjects.  Hence,  as  between 
these  United  States,  we  had  placed  here  in  this  second  section  of  the  fourth 
article  of  the  Constitution,  that  any  person  charged  with  treason,  felony, 
or  other  crime,  fleeing  from  one  State  to  another,  should  be  delivered  up, 
and  Congress  passed  a  law  to  carry  that  out.  For  the  purpose  of  deliver 
ing  up  persons  accused  of  crime  in  one  State  and  fleeing  to  another,  papers 
are  prepare'd,  a  prima  facie  case  is  made  out,  and  a  quasi  trial  is  had. 
These  are  indispensable  to  executive  action  among  our  States.  So  in  re 
gard  to  fugitives  from  labor,  the  same  preliminaries  are  required.  Proof, 
a  hearing  before  the  commissioner,  and  warrants  for  the  delivery  of 
the  fugitive  to  the  claimant — these  prerequisites  are  a  part  of  a  system  as 
to  all  renditions. 

It  is  laid  down  in  every  authority  on  international  law,  and  by  states 
men  who  have  had  instances  before  them  in  this  country  in  the  various 
cases  growing  out  of  the  treaties  with  Great  Britain,  France,  and  other 
countries,  that  there  can  be  no  rendition  of  any  one  from  one  State  to 


SEDITION   IN   THE   NOETH.  107 

another,  except  in  pursuance  of  some  treaty  or  law  specially  made  to 
effectuate  the  object. 

Indeed,  in  this  very  case  of  Arguellcs,  when  our  consul  at  Havana  was 
informed  of  the  flight  of  Arguelles  to  New  York,  with  a  view  to  his  recla 
mation,  the  consul  at  once  said  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  treaty,  no  recla 
mation  could  be  had ;  that  if  it  were  had  it  would  be  an  "  exceptional 
measure/'  In  this  view  he  is  confirmed  by  Judge  Story  in  his  Conflict 
of  Laws ;  by  the  practice  of  this  Government  in  a  case  as  early  as  1792, 
when  Mr.  Jefferson  urged  a  treaty  with  Spain ;  in  another  case  under  the 
Jay  treaty  in  1799  ;  in  another  case  under  Washington's  administra 
tion  in  1797,  for  the  rendition  to  Spain  of  certain  criminals  from 
Florida,  then  a  Spanish  province  ;  in  another  case  in  1821,  when  William 
Wirt,  as  Attorney-General,  held  that  the  Executive  Jiad  no  power  to 
arrest  a  refugee,  except  for  the  violation  of  our  own  laws ;  in  another 
case  in  1831,  of  a  Portuguese  pirate,  wherein  Attorney-General  Taney 
decided  the  same  principle  ;  and  in  various  other  cases  up  to  the  time  of 
our  civil  war,  when,  in  a  case  of  demand  by  Mr.  Seward  for  rebels  held 
by  Spain,  the  Spanish  Minister  of  State  himself,  Miraflores,  insisted  on  a 
treaty  of  extradition  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  delivery.  It  makes  my  Amer 
ican  blood  tingle  to  read  the  eloquent  vindication  of  this  great  right  from 
the  lips  of  the  Minister  of  Spain.  I  insert  it  here  as  the  better  sentiment 
of  what  is  left  of  the  free  white  men  of  America  : 

"  The  right  to  give  asylum  to  political  refugees  is  in  such  manner  rooted  in  the  habits, 
In  such  sort  interwoven  with  the  ideas  of  tolerance  of  the  present  century,  and  has  such 
frequent,  generous,  and  beneficent  applications  in  the  extraordinary  and  ensanguined  po 
litical  contests  of  the  times  we  live  in,  that  there  is  no  nation  in  the  world  which  dares  to 
deny  this  right,  and,  moreover,  not  any  one  that  can  renounce  its  exercise.  And  if  the 
Government  of  Washington  wishes  to  acquire  a  perfect  and  positive  right  to  the  delivery 
of  those  guilty  of  ordinary  crimes,  it  will  be  accomplished  by  means  of  a  treaty  of  extra 
dition,  to  the  conclusion  of  which  the  Spanish  Government  would  not  oppose  itself,  as  it 
has  not  refused  to  conclude  such  with  other  States." 

I  need  not  call  the  roll  of  English  judges  or  statesmen  who  have  spoken 
to  the  same  effect  with  legal  learning  and  indignant  eloquence.  The  Cre 
ole  case  gave  rise  to  these  discussions  in  the  English  Parliament.  The 
great  names  of  Aberdeen,  Denman,  Campbell,  Brougham,  and  others 
might  be  cited,  to  show  that  the  sanctity  of  asylum  can  only  be  invaded 
in  pursuance  of  treaty  or  of  statute. 

Yet,  in  defiance  of  all  precedent,  practice,  and  authority,  this  House 
proposes  not  to  repeal  the  constitutional  clause  requiring  fugitives  from 
labor  to  be  delivered  up,  but,  preserving  that  clause,  to  nullify  it  altoge 
ther  by  repealing  the  law  by  which  alone  the  clause  can  be  executed. 

On  the  charitable  assumption  that  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  intend 
to  execute  the  Constitution,  I  say  that  it  is  indispensable  that  some  law 
should  exist  to  carry  it  out.  As  in  the  case  of  a  treaty,  as  in  the  Arguel 
les  case,  so  in  the  case  of  a  fugitive  slave  there  must  be  some  law  to  carry 
out  the  treaty  or  clause  of  rendition.  To  repeal  the  law  made  for  that 
purpose,  is  a  cowardly  blow  at  the  Constitution  itself.  It  is  a  breach  of 
faith,  a  breach  of  treaty ;  and  between  independent  nations  would  be  a 
casus  belli.  Between  States  banded  like  ours  under  a  Constitution,  it  is 
a  flagrant  violation  of  a  sacred  compact. 


108  EIGHT   YEARS   D*   CONGRESS. 

JUDICIAL   DECISIONS    AS   TO   FUGITIVES. 

Mr.  Cox  then  showed  by  ample  quotations  that  the  Republicans  held, 
in  the  matter  of  rendition  of  fugitives  from  labor,  that  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  was  a  usurper  of  State  rights,  and  "  denied  that  the  decisions  of  a 
usurping  party  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  its  own  assumptions  can  settle 
any  thing ;"  or,  as  Attorney-General  Wolcott  argued  (9  Ohio  Reports, 
114),  that  "  as  to  these  powers,  the  States  stand  to  each  other  and  to  the 
Federal  Government  as  absolutely  foreign  nations." 

He  then  concluded  by  addressing  the  Republican  side  of  the  House  : 
You  are  against  the  rendition  of  the  black  man  in  pursuance  of  the 
Constitution  ;  and  you  give  up  a  white  man  who  has  sought  an  asylum 
on  our  shores  without  the  form  or  substance  of  law  or  treaty,  and  in 
"  positive  defiance  "  of  the  law  of  nations  and  the  Constitution.  Your 
Executive  is  a  usurper  of  the  powers  wisely  distributed  to  the  other  depart 
ments  of  the  Government.  Here  you  sit  to-day  striving  to  strike  down 
the  only  mode  whereby  one  peculiar  clause  of  the  Constitution  can  be 
carried  out,  and  propose  no  mode  as  a  substitute  either  by  State  or  Fed 
eral  action.  You  will  not  allow  an  individaal  to  take  his  slave  by  the 
sanction  of  the  Constitution  alone ;  you  will  pass  no  law  to  help  him. 
You  will  not  allow  him  to  go  into  a  free  State  and  have  his  right  there 
by  jury  trial,  because  you  cannot  try  the  claimant's  right  to  a  slave  by 
a  jury  in  a  free  State.  You  will  not  allow  the  law  of  1793,  which  George 
Washington  assisted  in  making  ;  yet  you  strike  down  all  the  great  rights 
of  personal  freedom  for  the  white  man  fixed  by  the  fathers  of  the  country 
in  our  fundamental  law,  because  you  are  demoniacally  bent  upon  riving 
this  Union  in  twain,  and  separating  its  parts  forever.  Your  ideas  are  not 
those  of  the  higher,  but  of  the  lower  law.  They  do  not  come  from  the 
sources  of  law  and  light  and  love  above.  They  sunder  all  the  ties  of 
allegiance  and  all  the  sanctions  of  faith.  You  are  destructionists  ;  you 
would  tear  down  all  that  is  valuable  and  sacred  in  the  past  and  build  up 
nothing  in  their  place.  You  are  revolutionists.  You  were  trying  for 
years  by  wrongful  interference  and  force  to  nullify  the  very  law  which 
you  now  seek  to  expunge  by  repeal.  You  diligently  sought  to  embroil 
the  States  in  collision  with  the  Federal  Government,  and  have  succeeded 
in  bringing  with  your  advent  into  power  the  consequences  we  predicted, 
a  relentless  and  bloody  war.  I  charge  it  upon  every  man  of  you  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House  who  took  any  part  in  these  seditious  infractions 
of  the  Constitution,  who  counselled  individual  and  State  resistance  and 
fomented  sectional  strife,  that  you  are  in  part  responsible  before  God  and 
the  country  for  our  present  calamities.  The  enormous  burdens  of  taxa 
tion,  the  widow's  tears,  the  orphan's  curse,  the  wail  of  the  bereaved,  and 
the  future  destitution  and  consuming  desolation  of  this  land,  all  cry  aloud 
against  you  as  the  authors  of  this  worst  evil  which  ever  befell  a  suffering 
people ! 


III. 

FOREIGN  AFFAIRS. 

CONTINENTAL     POLITICS EUROPEAN     PROTECTORATE     OVER   AMERICAN 

STATES — TERRITORIAL   EXPANSION. 

IN  anticipation  of  the  events  which  have  recently  transpired  in  the 
Spanish  American  States,  this  speech,  and  the  one  following  upon  Mexico, 
was  delivered.  On  the  18th  of  January,  1859,  addressing  the  House, 
Mr.  Cox  said : 

There  is  a  logic  in  history  which  is  as  inexorable  as  fate.  A  writer  in 
the  time  of  the  first  Stuart  gave  as  the  number  of  the  kingdoms  of  Chris 
tendom,  five-and-twenty.  But  there  was  no  mention  of  three  of  tfye  prin 
cipal  nations,  Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia,  in  their  present  divisions ; 
nor  of  twelve  other  nations  out  of  the  twenty  now  enumerated  in  Europe  ; 
nor  of  the  thirty  petty  sovereignties  now  extant  in  Germany.  Within 
two  centuries,  the  transatlantic  continent  has  changed  its  territory  and 
rulers  beyond  all  the  caprices  of  fancy ;  yet  by  a  law  as  fixed  as  that 
which  returns  the  seasons  and  rolls  the  stars. 

The  disquieting  aspect  of  cisatlantic  politics  signifies  the  consummation 
of  territorial  changes  on  this  continent,  long  predicted,  long  delayed,  but 
as  certain  as  the  logic  of  history  ! 

Some  of  these  changes  in  Europe  have  been  through  decay,  dissolution, 
and  disintegration.  Spain  was  once  the  Peru  and  Mexico  of  the  Old 
"World.  The  ancestors  of  the  hidalgo  were  enslaved  in  the  mines  of  Spain 
by  Rome  and  Carthage.  But  now,  Leon,  Aragon,  Castile,  Navarre, 
Toledo,  Galicia,  and  Granada,  once  separate  kingdoms,  have  lost  their 
isolated  glory,  and  are  only  known  as  the  props  of  the  "  worm-eaten 
throne  of  Spain."  The  stronger  races  of  Europe  have  consolidated  their 
power  by  extending  its  sphere  and  absorbing  the  weaker  neighboring 
nations.  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  by  union,  have  been  trans 
planted  into  colonies  and  multiplied  their  strength  ;  and  Russia  has  clasped 
the  half  of  Europe  and  Asia  in  its  strong  embrace,  until  from  the  furthest 
West  we  perceive  the  conflict  of  civilization  in  the  furthest  East. 

These  are  but  illustrations  of  a  law  from  which  America  is  not  exempt. 
Not  more  surely  will  northern  Africa,  and  indeed  the  countries  whose 
boundaries  are  coincident  with  the  Mediterranean,  become  French  ;  western 


110  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

and  northern  Asia  become  Russian ;  and  southern  and  central  Asia  be 
come  English,  than  this  continent  become  American !  The  law  which 
commands  this  is  higher  than  Congressional  enactment.  If  we  do  not 
work  with  it,  it  will  work  in  spite  of  us.  This  law  may  be  expressed 
thus:  That  the  weaker  and  disorganized  nations  must  be  absorbed  by  the 
strong  and  organized  nations.  Nationalities  of  inferior  grade  must  surren 
der  to  those  of  superior  civilization  and  polity  ! 

Whether  the  races  of  this  continent  be  in  a  tribal  condition,  as  are  our 
Indians,  or  in  a  semi-civilized  and  anarchical  condition,  as  are  the  Central 
and  South  American  and  Mexican  races,  they  must  obey  this  law  of  politi 
cal  gravitation.  This  law  drives  them  to  the  greater  and  more  illustrious 
State  for  protection,  happiness,  and  advancement.  Whether  the  United 
States  go  and  take  them,  or  they  come  and  ask  to  be  taken,  no  matter. 
They  must  whirl  in,  throw  off  their  nebulous  and  uncertain  form,  and 
become  crystallized  into  the  higher  forms  of  civilization. 

The  largest  expression  of  this  law  of  annexation  is :  That  no  nation 
has  the  right  to  hold  soil,  virgin  and  rich,  yet  unproducing  ;  no  nation  has 
a  right  to  hold  great  isthmian  highways,  or  strong  defences,  on  this  conti 
nent,  without  the  desire,  will,  or  power  to  use  them.  They  ought,  and 
must,  inure  to  the  advancement  of  our  commerce.  They  must  become 
confiscate  to  the  decrees  of  Providence  ! 

In  carrying  out  these  designs,  we  have,  from  time  to  time,  added  ter 
ritory  from  France,  Spain,  and  Mexico.  We  have  endeavored  to  add 
other  territory,  which  the  jealousy  of  France,  Spain,  and  especially  of 
England,  has  prevented.  It  is  not  my  purpose  now  to  rehearse  our  history 
in  this  regard.  We  may  have  kept  step  with  our  interests  and  our  desti 
ny  ;  but  at  this  juncture,  standing  on  the  threshold  of  this  new  year,  we 
are  only  marking  time,  not  moving  forward  !  It  is  well  to  inquire  whether 
there  is  not  now  upon  Us,  as  the  assembled  representatives  of  this  nation, 
a  peculiar  duty  with  respect  to  this  element  of  our  progress.  My  judg 
ment  is,  that  we  are  to-day  derelict.  We  are  not  up  to  the  enterprise  of 
the  nation.  If  we  consider  just  now  the  elements  of  our  people,  martial, 
mechanical,  intellectual,  agricultural,  and  political,  who  will  doubt  but 
that  there  are  a  dozen  locomotive  Republics  already  fired  up  and  ready  for 
movement  ? 

The  Executive  has  done  his  duty.  He  has  boldly  followed  out  his 
Ostend  ideas.  He  has  urged  upon  us  a  duty,  which  being  undone,  leaves 
him  powerless,  and  leaves  the  national  enthusiasm  and  expansion  a  prey 
to  adventurous  raids  and  seditious  propagandists.  Had  the  Thirty-Fourth 
Congress  aided  President  Pierce  in  the  Black  Warrior  matter,  we  should 
now  have  representatives  from  Cuba  on  this  floor ! 

The  President  has  called  our  attention  to  the  territory  upon  our  south. 
Not  New  Granada— she  will  come  in  time.  Not  Venezuela — she  is  even 
yet  more  vital  than  New  Granada.  But  the  country  north  of  these,  and 
lying  between  them  and  us,  must  be  absorbed.  For  this  absorption  we 
must  contend,  not  so  much  with  the  people,  whose  interests  will  be  en 
hanced  by  the  absorption,  but  with  Spain,  France,  and  England,  who  have 
no  interests  comparable  with  our  own.  These  interests  and  antagonisms 
I  propose  to  consider  in  this  order  :  First,  Cuba  ;  second,  Central  Ameri 
ca  ;  third,  Mexico. 


FOREIGN   AFFALK8.  Ill 

As  to  Cuba,  the  reasons  for  its  acquisition  are  well  understood  by  the 
country.  The  message  has  succinctly  and  ably  presented  them.  Its  geo 
graphical  position  gives  to  the  nation  which  holds  it,  unless  that  nation  be 
very  weak,  a  coigne  of  vantage  as  to  which  self-preservation  forbids  us  to 
be  indifferent.  Our  Mississippi,  foreign,  and  coastwise  trade,  now  $250,- 
000,000,  and  in  five  years  to  be  6500,000,000,  are  within  its  compass. 
"While  the  island  is  of  little  use  to  Spain,  save  as  a  source  of  revenue,  it  is 
to  us  of  incalculable  advantage.  The  nature  of  the  colonial  office  in  Cuba, 
its  power  to  harm  us  remedilessly,  unless  we  go  to  Madrid  for  remedy, 
and  the  final  stopping  of  the  slave  trade,  are  reasons  well  urged  by  the 
President.  Our  unsettled  claims,  and  the  many  other  difficulties  growing 
out  of  our  relations  to  Spain,  demand  settlement,  but  receive  none. 

How  long  shall  we  continue  in  this  condition  ?  During  the  pleasure 
of  Spain  ?  Is  there  no  redress  ?  Is  our  every  attempt  to  be  construed 
into  a  usurpation?  What  impediments  have  we  to  meet?  There  is  one 
which  has  since  Mr.  Adams's  time  proved  insurmountable — Spanish  pride. 
It  is  well  said  by  an  old  poet,  that 

"Spain  gives  us  pride,  which  Spain  of  all  the  earth 
May  freely  give,  nor  fear  herself  a  dearth." 

Since  then,  there  has  been  no  curtailment  of  that  pride.  True,  Spain 
has  now  little  to  be  proud  of  but  her  recollections.  Poor,  sensitive,  cor 
rupt,  she  holds  to  the  punctilio  of  dignity  without  its  substantial  energy. 
If  Spain  will  not  sell  Cuba  to  us,  because  she  feels  that  she  will  thereby 
sell  her  honor,  we  must  insist  on  her  changing  its  policy.  She  should 
keep  the  island  aloof  from  French  intervention.  She  should  preserve  its 
independence. 

Above  all,  Spain  should  abolish  her  present  infamous  tariff.  Her  ex 
port  tariff  is  an  anomalyf  in  commerce,  and  her  tariff  upon  imports  is  still 
more  barbaric.  Her  export  duty,  which  is  a  direct  tax  on  the  producer 
of  her  sugars  and  tobacco,  does  not  so  much  affect  us,  as  the  tax  which 
she  loads  on  our  flour,  pork,  beef,  and  lard.  We  have  tried  in  vain  by 
diplomacy  to  unloosen  these  shackles.  Nothing  but  the  sword  can  cut 
them  off. 

Up  to  1809,  Spain  imposed  restrictions  on  Cuba,  by  which  no  trade 
at  all  was  allowed  with  any  foreign  nation.  After  this,  and  on  the  revival 
of  the  Spanish  merchant-marine,  the  differential  duty  on  goods  imported 
in  foreign  bottoms  was  enacted.  It  was  intended  to  crush  out  the  trade 
with  the  United  States.  This  continued  till  1834,  when  this  Congress 
passed  retaliatory  laws.  No  countervailing  acts,  however,  could  move 
the  meanness  of  Spanish  restriction.  American  flour,  and  other  staples  for 
which  Cuba  must  look  to  a  foreign  market,  are  excluded.  Thus  a  balance 
of  trade,  averaging  $10,000,000  per  year,  is  kept  constantly  against  us. 
The  duty  in  Cuba  on  flour  imported  from  Spain  is  only  $2.50  per  barrel ; 
from  the  United  States,  in  American  or  other  foreign  bottoms,  it  is  $10.81. 
So  that,  if  flour  be  worth  five  dollars  in  Cincinnati,  the  cost  to  the  Cuban 
consumer  is  sixteen  dollars  per  barrel !  This  enormous  tax  on  flour  pre 
vents  its  use  in  the  island,  except  by  the  wealthy  few — the  thirty-five 
thousand  Spaniards.  The  body  of  the  poor  and  oppressed  Creoles  are 
compelled  to  use  the  dry  and  insipid  cassava  root  as  a  substitute  for  bread. 


112  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGEESS. 

This  tariff  on  flour,  added  to  an  infamous  tonnage-tax,  operates  as  a  pro 
hibition  on  flour.  With  a  moderate  duty,  or  if  Cuba  were  annexed,  its 
consumption,  as  it  is  estimated  by  our  economists,  would  be  a  million  of 
barrels  !  It  would  be  enjoyed  by  us  exclusively — benefit  the  farmers  of 
my  State  and  yours.  That  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  no  other  country 
could  compete  with  us  in  that  staple  ;  for  no  other  country  is  so  near  to 
Cuba,  or  so  prolific  in  breadstuff's. 

We  exported  to  Cuba,  in  1857,  only  45,145  barrels  of  flour,  worth 
$324,410  ;  in  1858,  17,905  barrels,  worth  $105,069.  Of  other  articles, 
beef,  pork,  lard,  hams,  and  bacon,  and  including  flour,  we  had,  in  1857, 
but  $1,868,783  ;  in  1858,  but  $1,228,119.  Whereas,  had  a  liberal  com 
mercial  economy,  like  that  of  Belgium,  Holland,  or  Great  Britain,  ob 
tained,  we  should  have  had,  at  least,  $10,000,000  of  produce  exported. 
This  would  nearly  have  balanced  our  trade  in  sugar  and  coffee,  and  on 
these  we  have  fixed  no  prohibitive  tariff!  Thus  our  commerce  is  crippled 
under  the  blows  of  this  Spanish  oppression.  Why,  even  the  Spanish 
Crown  would  be  better  helped  by  a  more  liberal  policy.  Such  a  system, 
in  this  era  of  commercial  freedom,  is  a  shame  to  civilization,  and  if  inter 
national  law  were  rightly  written,  it  would,  itself,  be  a  cause  of  honorable 
war  !  But  I  have  no  hope  that  Spain  will  sell  Cuba,  or  that  the  Cubans 
understand  the  nature  of  the  blessings  Avhich  attend  annexation.  They 
will  not  perceive  that  they  become,  by  annexation,  coequal  with  New 
York  and  Ohio,  in  a  common  league  for  the  common  weal.  They  fear 
for  their  church  and  domestic  institutions,  as  if  they  were  any  part  of 
Federal  concernment. 

I  was  surprised  to  meet  an  impediment  raised  by  a  distinguished.  Sen 
ator  [HAMMOND]  from  South  Carolina  in  his  Barnwell  speech.  I  trust 
it  is  not  shared  by  many  Southern  men.  He  objects  to  taking  Cuba  ;  first, 
because  it  may  involve  a  war,  whose  consequences  he  states  to  be  fearful. 
He  leaves  us  in  doubt  as  to  these  consequences*  Does  he  mean  the  re 
duction  of  Cuba  to  the  condition  of  Hayti?  A  terrible  consequence. 
That  might  follow  ;  but  that  is  rather  an  English  than  a  Spanish  threat, 
and  hardly  capable  of  execution  in  a  time  when  Spain  and  France  are  re 
viving  the  slave  trade  to  cheapen  tropical  produce.  His  second  objection 
is  more  salient.  I  quote  it  entire  : 

"If  we  had  Cuba,  we  could  not  make  more  than  two  or  three  slave  States  there, 
which  would  not  restore  the  equilibrium  of  the  North  and  the  South ;  while,  with  the 
African  slave  trade  closed,  and  her  only  resort  to  this  continent,  she  would,  besides  crush 
ing  out  our  whole  sugar  culture  by  her  competition,  afford  in  a  few  years  a  market  for  all 
the  slaves  in  Missouri,  Kentucky,  and  Maryland.  She  is,  notwithstanding  the  exorbitant 
taxes  imposed  on  her,  capable  now  of  absorbing  the  annual  increase  of  all  the  slaves  on 
this  continent,  and  consumes,  it  is  said,  twenty  or  thirty  thousand  a  year  by  her  system 
of  labor.  Slaves  decrease  there  largely.  In  time,  under  the  system  practised,  every  slave 
in  America  might  be  exterminated  in  Cuba  as  were  the  Indiana.  However  the  idle 
African  may  procreate  in  the  tropics,  it  yet  remains  to  be  proven,  and  the  facts  are 
against  the  conclusion,  that  he  can,  in  those  regions,  work  and  thrive.  It  is  said  Cuba  is 
to  be  '  Africanized,'  rather  than  that  the  United  States  should  take  her.  That  threat, 
which  at  one  time  was  somewhat  alarming,  is  no  longer  any  cause  of  disquietude  to  the 
South,  after  our  experience  of  the  Africanizing  of  St.  Domingo  and  Jamaica.  What  have 
we  lost  by  that  ?  I  think  we  reaped  some  benefit ;  and  if  the  slaves  of  Cuba  are  turned 
loose,  a  great  sugar  culture  would  grow  up  in  Louisana  and  Texas,  rivalling  that  of  cot 
ton,  and  diverting  from  it  so  much  labor*  that  cotton  would  rarely  be  below  its  present 
price." 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  113 

This  objection  is  two-fold.  The  inter-state  slave  trade  with  Cuba,  in 
case  of  annexation,  he  thinks,  would  make  several  free  States,  by  the  de 
mand  and  consumption  of  negroes  ;  and  even  if  it  would  not,  Cuba  would 
not  give  the  South  the  preponderance  in  the  Union  ;  and  secondly,  sugar  he 
thinks  would  be  cheap  to  the  whole  Union  ;  while  a  few  thousand  sugar 
planters,  who  just  thrive  on  the  bounty  they  now  get,  would  be  ruined. 
As  to  the  argument  about  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  Maryland  becoming 
free  through  Cuban  annexation,  I  leave  that  to  the  members  from  those 
States.  As  to  the  sugar,  I  say,  that  an  argument  of  that  kind  addressed 
to  a  free-trade  people,  by  a  free-traderr  should  go  far  to  weaken  the  mo 
rale  of  his  great  and  frank  speech,  as  it  does  the  economy  of  his  politics.  To 
the  people  of  my  State,  such  an  argument  will  quicken  their  ambition  to 
acquire  Cuba  ;  not  alone  because  of  the  millions  to  be  gained  by  an  increase 
of  our  exports  thither,  which  are  taxed  prohibitively ;  but  because  we 
pay  a  tax  on  Cuban  sugar,  which  is  harsh,  protective,  and  indefensible, 
in  any  epoch  of  a  depressed  exchequer.  In  1857,  there  were,  in  all,  of 
sugar  and  molasses,  imported  from  Cuba  into  the  United  States,  $40,093,- 
466  worth.  The  tariff  on  these  sugars  was  $12,028,039.80.  Ohio  paid 
one-tenth  of  this,  or  about  twelve  hundred  thousand  dollars,  which  is 
equal  to  her  immense  school  tax,  and  nearly  a  half  a  million  more  than 
she  pays  for  her  State  -government,  and  nearly  one-half  the  expenses  of 
all  her  counties.  By  our  tariff  of  1857,  we  reduced  the  tax  on  sugar  six 
per  cent.,  and  the  panic  reduced  the  importation  enormously.  During  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1858,  our  sugars  from  Cuba  amounted  to  only  $18,- 
620,022,  giving  a  revenue  of  $4,468,805.28,  at  twenty-four  per  cent,  ad 
valorem. 

Since  1847,  when  Mr.  Polk  proposed  annexation,  this  nation  must 
have  paid  over  sixty  millions  of  sugar  tax !  Ohio  has  paid  of  that  sum 
$6,000,000.  My  district  has  paid  one-twentieth  part  of  $6,000,000,  or 
$300,000 ;  an  annual  tax  of  $30,000,  all  for  what !  That  one  of  the 
prime  necessaries  of  life  should  be  fostered  into  premature  growth,  to  aid 
a  few  sugar  planters  in  the  South  !  If  Cuba  cannot  be  annexed,  to  break 
this  servility,  by  which  the  many  are  made  tributary  to  the  few,  then  we 
must  remodel  our  Democracy  and  economy.  My  State  Legislature,  in 
1854,  passed  a  resolution,  at  my  solicitation,  requesting  Congress  to  abate 
this  tax.  There  is  no  reason  for  its  existence. 

"  But,"  it  is  said,  "  we  must  protect  Texas  and  Louisiana  in  their  few 
sugar  plantations  !  If  Cuba  comes  in,  away  goes  the  tax !"  Every  man, 
woman,  and  child,  in  my  State,  will  say:  "Away  with  it !  Welcome 
Cuba  and  free  sugar  !"  "  But,"  says  the  Senator,  "  if  Cuba  be  African 
ized  and  kept  out,  it  will  keep  up  the  price  of  sugar,  and  a  great  growth 
will  spring  up,  rivalling  cotton."  What  then?  Ecstasy!  "Negroes 
will  be  in  demand.  Cotton,  too,  will  be  kept  high ! "  What  an  argu 
ment  for  a  Senator  of  all  the  United  States,  every  one  of  whose  interests 
are  his  own !  The  Union  is  a  cotton-pod !  [Laughter.]  Its  growth 
dependent  on  the  growth  of  the  cane  !  If,  by  this  logic,  Cuba  is  to  be 
kept  out,  let  us  know  it.  Already  the  Republican  mouth  grows  juicy  at 
the  prospect  with  Cuba  in  the  Union  !  [Laughter.]  It  matters  not  if 
sugar  be  made  by  slaves.  That  little  delicacy  of  Exeter-Hall  sentimental- 
8 


114  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

ity  is  becoming  obsolete.  Even  our  Quakers  are  willing  to  drink  cheap 
damnation  in  their  coffee-cups,  and  eat  it  on  their  buckwheats  ! 

My  most  distinguished  constituent,  the  Governor  of  my  State,  and  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidency,  will  soon  outvie  your  southern  Hotspurs  in 
the  race  of  annexation,  if  thus  you  dress  your  laggard  logic.  In  a  speech 
at  a  Yankee  festival  in  my  city,  where  the  Pilgrims  were  praised  for 
many  a  virtue  which  they  had  not,  and  their  intolerable  intolerance  was 
glossed  over  by  the  fervor  of  the  hour,  Governor  Chase  is  reported  to 
have  advocated  the  policy  of  "  leaving  to  every  one  the  absolute  control 
of  all  matters  of  domestic  concernment,"  and  an  "  indefinite  expansion 
of  empire."  If  this  does  not  include  Cuba,  I  will  ask  his  friends  oppo 
site  to  say  what  is  excluded  by  his  concluding  remark,  that  as  the  last 
result  of  the  enlarging  empire  both  of  American  Government  and  Ameri 
can  principles,  he  summons  "  the  parliament  of  man  to  sit  on  the  desti 
nies  of  the  world"? 

I  did  not  dream  that  I  should  ever  have  to  welcome  the  Ohio  aspirant 
for  the  White  House  into  the  support  of  its  present  occupant.  I  did  not 
dream  last  fall  that  I  should  represent  him  so  nearly.  I  warn  gentlemen 
of  the  South  to  observe  these  signs,  and  prevent  this  grand  larceny  of  De 
mocratic  thunder,  by  considering  the  proposition  which  some  gentleman 
last  session  called  national  grand  larceny !  Call  it  by  what  name  you 
will,  I  am  ready  to  answer  the  call  of  the  President,  if  for  nothing  else, 
for  the  benefit  of  our  $250,000,000  of  yearly  trade,  which  must  pass\mder 
the  range  of  Cuban  cannon.  I  am  ready  to  vote  for  the  bill  of  the  gentle 
man  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  BRANCH],  looking  to  the  purchase  of  Cuba ; 
and  I  am  not  very  particular  as  to  the  amount  of  money  with  which  to 
fill  the  blank  in  his  bill.  In  case  of  our  failure  to  purchase  by  honorable 
negotiation,  I  would  favor  its  seizure  in  case  of  foreign  war,  or  of  a  Euro 
pean  intervention. 

As  to  Central  America,  I  do  not  desire  to  enter  so  fully  into  our  rela 
tions  with  this  region.  That  has  been  ably  done  by  my  friend  from  Vir 
ginia  [Mr.  JENKINS].  We  know  well  the  impediment  existing  in  the 
way  of  our  acquisition  there.  The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty — the  diploma 
tic  blunder  of  the  century — stands  as  a  huge  gorgon  in  our  path.  The 
policy  of  its  abrogation  is  conceded ;  but  "  how  not  to  do  it "  seems  to  have 
been  the  practice.  The  present  Executive,  in  his  message  of  December  8, 
1857,  bewailed  this  condition  of  things.  He  inherited,  as  did  President 
Pierce,  this  treaty  of  peace,  which  has  proved  a  treaty  of  offence.  Eng 
land  and  the  United  States  have  been  quarrelling  over  its  construction, 
when  its  destruction  was  the  most  pacific  course  that  could  have  been 
adopted.  Collateral  treaties  may  be  made  which  will  prevent  the  conse 
quence  of  an  abrupt  abrogation  of  this  treaty.  Diplomacy  is  now,  we  are 
told,  working  to  this  end. 

But  there  is  in  the  American  mind  a  chronic  distrust  of  England.  It 
is  well  grounded  in  her  laxity  of  faith.  When  her  interests  can  be  sub 
served,  she  breaks  any  compact ;  and  only  adheres  to  it  when  demanded 
by  her  interests.  Whether  the  treaties  to  be  made  with  Honduras,  Costa 
Rica,  and  Nicaragua,  throttle  this  bantling  of  Bulwer,  whether  we  are  to 
lose  still  more  by  British  dilatory  diplomacy,  remains  to  be  seen.  One 
thing  is  remarkable,  that  we  have  not  advanced  since  1849,  when  Nica- 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  115 

ragua,  in  the  Hiess-Selva  treaty,  proposed  to  "  confer  on  us  the  exclusive 
right "  of  an  interoceanic  canal,  or  highway.  Had  that  treaty  been  con 
firmed,  we  might  have  had  to-day  forts  and  free  cities  along  its  route  and 
at  its  termini,  with  full  right  to  protect  Nicaragua  by  all  the  strength  of 
our  navy  and  army.  A  year  later,  and  that  wily  diplomatist,  Bulwer 
— who,  for  his  tact,  is  sent  to  the  Bosphorus  to  teach  Russia  her  role  in 
the  East — comes  forward  with  his  projet.  Our  Government  nibbles  coyly 
at  his  bait ;  but,  like  a  foolish  fish,  at  last  leaps  for  the  fly,  is  barbed,  and 
hauled  in  to  flounder  for  the  amusement  of  the  world.  Would  that  Mr. 
Clayton  had  weighed  the  meaning  of  Smclfungus's  philosophy :  "  It  is 
always  time  to  cut  your  throat ;  but  if  your  throat  is  once  cut,  there  are 
certain  difficulties  in  the  way  of  reconsidering  your  determination." 

Crampton  and  Webster  tried  in  1852  to  unravel  the  web.  Then  Web 
ster  and  Molina  tried  it,  with  the  aid  of  Costa  Rica.  Then  Wheeler  and 
Escobar,  acting  for  Nicaragua,  made  an  effort,  which  our  Government 
failed  to  accept.  Then  Clarendon  and  Herran,  for  Honduras,  sought  to 
untie  the  knot ;  and  this  led  the  way  to  the  Cass-Yrisari  treaty  in  the  fall 
of  1857,  which  began  de  novo.  Then,  a  fair  treaty  was  made,  allowing 
us  the  protectorate  of  the  transit ;  but  through  foreign  influence  it  was  so 
modified  by  Nicaragua  as  to  be  unacceptable  to  our  Government.  Now, 
Sir  Gore  Ouseley,  having  ceased  to  be  a  diplomatic  myth  here,  has  gone 
to  the  South,  where,  we  trust,  something  may  be  done  to  cancel  that  part 
of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  by  which  we  agreed  with  England  to  cut 
our  throats,  by  never  "  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colonizing,  or  assuming 
or  exercising  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito 
coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America."  We  trust  that  such  an  agree 
ment  may  be  made  to  this  end ;  but  my  reading  of  history  is  vain,  if  we 
do  not  find  thrown  about  this  abrogotion  some  clog  which  the  American 
people  will  not  bear. 

The  truth  is,  that  we  have  slept  so  long,  and  dreamed  so  transport- 
ingly  of  our  destiny  over  these  regions,  that  meanwhile  Japan  and  China 
are  opened  ;  Frazer's  River  becomes  an  Eldorado  ;  and  English  and  French 
navies,  quitting  the  attempt  on  Cronstadt,  and  tiring  of  the  red  storm  of 
the  Euxine,  display  their  guns  on  this  continent.  Their  entente  cordiale, 
as  Clarendon  said  it  would  be,  is  extended  to  this  hemisphere  ;  and  here 
we  have  them  !  They  are,  by  their  presence,  if  not  by  their  diplomacy, 
ignoring  the  far-famed  doctrine  of  Mr.  Monroe,  which  had,  when  first 
given,  as  general  a  meaning  and  as  practical  a  use,  as  it  ought  now  to 
have  a  specific  application.  His  doctrine  was,  that  the  Countries  of  the 
American  continent,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which  they 
assumed  and  maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects 
for  future  colonization  or  influence  by  any  European  Power. 

Let  controversy  contend  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  doctrine.  I  know 
that  when  Yucatan  was  about  to  be  taken  by  England,  and  when  English 
arms  were  furnished  her  for  an  independency  of  Mexico,  which  would 
have  been  a  dependency  of  England,  Mr.  Calhoun  then  tried,  in  an  able 
speech,  to  limit  the  application  of  that  doctrine  to  the  surroundings  out 
of  which  it  grew,  namely,  to  the  intervention  of  the  holy  alliance  to 
recover  the  revolted  American  States  for  Spain,  and  the  Russian  occu- 
palion  on  our  northwest.  But  the  declaration  has  a  larger  meaning. 


116  EIG1IT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

It   has   become    settled  policy.      In   1823,  Mr.  Jefferson   laid  it  down 
thus : 

"  Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  tho 
broils  of  Europe ;  our  second,  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cisatlantic 
affairs." 

Yet  this  doctrine  is  sneered  at,  as  if  Monroe's  ghost  were  invoked  to 
do  a  kind  of  constable's  duty,  to  warn  all  foreign  intruders  from  this  con 
tinent.  So  far  as  emigration  is  concerned,  this  continent  is  open  as  day ; 
but  no  flag,  no  policy,  no  institution,  no  colonies,  no  protectorates  of  Eu 
rope,  can  exist  here,  without  endangering  the  peace,  infringing  the  rights, 
or  disturbing  the  order  and  prospective  interests  of  this  continent.  What 
ever  may  have  been  the  occasion  of  the  Monroe  declaration,  its  cause  is 
as  eternal  as  liberty,  and  its  consequences  will  be  as  progressive  as  our 
nation.  I  care  not  for  its  traditionary  emphasis.  Democrats,  at  least, 
can  afford  to  let  that  go.  Is  it  sound  doctrine  for  the  present?  If  so,  it 
ought  to  be  the  enthusiastic  sentiment  and  genius  of  this  Government. 
If  so,  let  it  be  no  more  the  jeer  of  Europe,  the  swagger  of  America, 
but  a  fact  as  much  a  part  of  our  historic  life  as  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  which  was  its  procreant  source.  It  is  the  law  of  self- 
preservation.  General  Cass,  in  his  recent  letter,  has  given  it  proper 
direction.  It  was  intended  to  guard  this  continent  against  the  incur 
sion  of  any  alliances,  u  holy "  or  unholy.  It  looked  to  that  law 
which  I  have  laid  down,  by  which  the  interests  and  honor  of  this  hemi 
sphere  were  to  be  guarded  by  none  but  ourselves.  We  do  not  want  to  be 
foreclosed  against  itg  occupation,  fortification,  and  annexation.  In  the 
present  feeling  of  this  country,  no  treaty  can  be  made  and  made  to  stand, 
if  it  does  not  break  down  all  protectorates  of  England  and  all  interfer 
ence  of  France.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  dare  not  confirm  such 
a  treaty.  The  present  Executive  will  not  present  it.  The  present  Secre 
tary  of  State  will  not  sanction  it. 

Does  England  want  Honduras,  Yucatan,  the  Belize?  What  are  they 
to  her  ?  Nothing,  except  as  she  can  use  them  to  block  up  the  progress 
of  this  nation.  Does  she  want  free  passage  over  the  Central  American 
States  ?  That  she  can  have  under  our  auspices  and  with  safety  !  What 
does  she  with  the  Valorous  and  the  Leopard  in  the  Caribbean  Sea  ?  Why 
do  her  officers  spy  for  arms  in  the  American  steamer  Washington  ?  Is  it 
only  fillibusters  she  is  after?  I  do  distrust  her.  If  she  seems  to  acqui 
esce  in  our  view  for  a  time,  may  we  not  attribute  it  to  that  popular  will 
which  compels  her  aristocracy  to  more  prudence  in  reference  to  America  ? 
She  pretended  to  settle  all  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty ;  yet  that  treaty 
was  a  delusion  and  a  snare.  While  that  treaty  was  yet  warm,  England 
drove  the  Nicaraguan  forces  out  of  San  Juan  del  Norte  ;  then  she  pirates 
that  entrepot  from  an  independent  State  ;  anoints  a  hybrid  savage  as  a 
king ;  gives  to  a  few  Jamaica  negroes,  dressed  like  the  Georgia  major 
without  his  spurs,  the  constabulary  baton,  and  builds  a  congeries  of  negro 
huts  which  she  nicknames  after  the  Earl  Grey.  She  performs  the  same 
office  for  Honduras,  by  what  Clarendon  called  tho  "  spontaneous  settle 
ment"  of  the  Bay  Islands  ;  and  then  claims  from  us  good  faith  in  keep 
ing  the  compact  which  she  breaks !  Then  comes  Sir  Gore  Ouseley  to 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  117 

maintain  the  delusion,  in  spite  of  Lord  Napier,  who  goes  home.  What 
more  ?  She  approves  of  the  Cass-Yrissari  treaty  by  fomenting  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  its  ratification.  She  pretends  to  Mr.  Dallas,  through 
Malmesbury,  that  Belly  is  a  French  adventurer  for  whom  she  has  no  sym 
pathy  ;  yet,  in  acts,  gives  to  him  French  and  English  protection,  through 
the  alliance.  It  is  not  safe  to  trust  her.  Her  treaties  are  ropes  of  sand. 
Her  international  law  is  too  elastic  for  use  by  any  but  herself.  Her  de 
signs  are  steeped  in  fraud  ;  and  "all  complications  with  her  are  dangerous 
and  entangling.  Thank  God  !  we  have  a  Secretary  of  State  whose  life  is 
marked  with  signal  ability  in  anticipating,  demonstrating,  and  frustrating 
her  designs.  This  nation  will  sustain  him  in  his  declaration  that 

"  The  establishment  of  a  political  protectorate  by  any  one  of  the  Powers  of  Europe 
over  any  of  the  independent  States  of  this  continent,  or,  in  other  words,  the  introduction 
of  a  scheme  of  policy  which  would  carry  with  it  a  right  to  interfere  in  their  concerns,  is 
a  measure  to  which  the  United  States  have  long  since  avowed  their  opposition,  and  which, 
should  the  attempt  be  made,  they  will  resist  by  all  the  means  in  their  power." 

Behind  this  rock  the  present  Administration  are  intrenched.  There  is 
no  feeling  in  this  country  worth  calling  patriotism,  which  does  not  stand 
squarely  up  to  this  high  and  strong  position.  Why  should  not  this  Con 
gress,  by  some  definite  action,  stand  by  the  popular  sense  and  the  Govern 
ment  ?  I  am  ready  either  to  give  the  moral  force  of  a  resolution  such  as 
that  now  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  abrogate  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty ;  or  I  am  ready  to  go  further,  and  to  clothe  the  President 
with  extraordinary  powers,  and  to  give  him  means,  or  the  authority  to 
procure  means,  by  which  his  recommendations  may  be  acted  on. 

But  it  may  be  said,  Why  so  much  risk  of  war  with  the  combined 
powers  of  Europe  ;  why  so  much  anxiety  for  the  Isthmus  or  Central 
American  route  ?  Not  because  we  are  in  danger  of  being  cut  off  from  its 
dominion.  That  will  come,  if  these  Central  American  States  remain  in 
dependent  of  European  constraint.  Not  because  it  is  the  only  feasible 
mode  of  transit  for  the  great  oriental  trade  between  the  oceans ;  for  in 
time  there  will  be  rapid  and  safe  transits  on  our  own  soil.  Not  so  much  be 
cause  we  ought  to  have  and  hold  the  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  trade  with 
these  Spanish  American  tropical  lands,  instead  of  but  ten  millions  which 
we  now  have.  But  nature  never  made  so  narrow  an  obstacle,  one  so 
easily  severed,  and  on  which  such  great  commercial  and  economical  re 
sults  depended,  as  that  at  Darien  or  Nicaragua.  She  buried  mountains 
and  valleys  beneath  the  wave,  to  narrow  that  neck,  and  thus  expand  the 
bounds  of  interchange,  and  encircle  the  earth  with  a  white  zone  of  ar 
gosies- 

If  New  Granada  shall  be  ours,  as  it  should  be  within  a  twelvemonth, 
unless  the  Congress  of  Bogota  show  more  honesty  and  wisdom  in  settling 
the  claims  of  our  Panama  sufferers,  than  is  likely  ;  if  New  Granada  would 
follow  the  advice  of  Gonzales,  her  attorney-general,  and  enhance  her  in 
terests  by  applying  for  admission  to  our  Union  ;  and  if  Venezuela  would 
follow  the  wise  inclinations  of  her  patriot  chief,  General  Paez,  whose  exile 
here  has  made  him  love  the  land  of  his  home  the  more  for  the  prospect  of 
uniting  its  fortunes  with  ours  ;  then,  indeed,  these  Central  American  States, 
now  the  football  of  European  diplomacy,  must  either  come  to  us,  or  be 
powdered  into  nothingness  between  the  industrial  movements  of  the  sur- 


118  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

rounding  States.  Once  let  the  agriculture  of  Venezuela  be  smiled  upon 
by  a  protecting  Government,  and  her  magnificent  ports  would  soon  fill 
with  the  keels  of  her  elder  commerce.  Let  northern  energy  blend  with 
her  undirected  labor,  and  the  gold  mines  of  Upata  would  gleam  with  their 
olden  treasures.  Let  Panama  break  from  her  vassalage  to  her  irrespon 
sible  rulers,  and  that  mart  of  the  golden  age  of  Spain  and  her  viceroys  will 
teem  with  a  wealth  which  no  buccaneers  in  a  thousand  caravels  can  bear 
away.  These  accomplished,  and  the  intermediate  States  of  Nicaragua, 
Costa  Rica,  Salvador,  Honduras,  and  Guatemala  will  follow,  as  surely  as 
the  sheaf  of  the  summer  follows  the  seed  of  the  spring.  The  trade  of  all 
tropical  America  would  then  fall  to  us  naturally  by  our  proximity,  and 
by  the  variety  of  our  productions  with  which  to  barter.  These  tropical 
wastes  ought  to  give  us  coffee,  indigo,  and  cocoa,  which  are  failing  in  In 
dia,  as  well  as  the  cabinet  woods,  so  much  in  demand.  In  return  they 
will  take  our  flour,  pork,  machinery,  fabrics,  and  a  thousand  other  articles 
which  they  need,  and  which  every  State  of  this  Union  produces.  Our 
trade,  which  now  counts  its  hundreds,  will  then  count  its  millions. 

If  this  Congress  has  optic  nerve  enough  to  look  a  few  years  ahead,  it 
will  at  least  start  a  policy  that  will  secure  all  the  isthmus  highways, 
which  are  so  indispensable  to  our  development  and  power.  Its  first  duty 
is  to  repel  every  attempt  of  the  remotest  influence,  come  from  \vhat  quar 
ter  it  may,  wrhich  may  impede  this  procession  of  events  or  arrest  our  in 
evitable  and  legitimate  aggrandizement.  No  nation  with  one  harbor, 
much  less  a  nation  with  a  coast  bestrewn  with  harbors  like  ours,  can  be 
long  prosperous  within,  that  does  not  prosper  and  .grow  without.  When 
a  State,  which  is  commercial  by  situation,  forgets  the  work  of  outbuilding 
its  empire,  it  loses  its  inner  vitality.  The  day  that  marks  its  failure  to 
meet  every  rising  opportunity  of  advancement  abroad,  marks  its  sure  de 
cline  at  home.  As  with  the  individual,  so  with  the  State  ;  if  its  ambition 
be  dead  and  its  hopes  of  expansion  smoulder,  its  dissolution  is  speedy  and 
sure.  While  its  intellectual  and  physical  energies  are  tense  and  grasp  a 
large  range,  its  internal  and  foreign  empire  will  become  consummate,  be 
cause  it  has  the  everlasting  law  of  GROWTH  ! 

We  have  illustrated  that  law  with  reference  to  our  southern  neighbor, 
Mexico.  The  effete  and  wasted  portions  of  Mexico,  being  one-half  of  her 
area,  lying  next  to  us,  became  nutriment  to  our  stalwart  strength.  The 
very  dirt  of  the  ground  became  assimilated  with  our  energy,  and  lo  !  from 
our  Mexican  purchases.  $70,000,000  of  gold  per  year  are  sucked  into 
every  conduit  of  American  life,  to  enhance  its  happiness,  and  give  fresh 
comfort  to  its  homes.  It  was  once  objected,  that  the  soil  of  California, 
New  Mexico,  and  Arizona  was  poor ;  a  land  of  sand  and  centipedes ; 
that  there  was  no  homogeneity  in  the  people.  True,  they  have  six  millions 
of  Indians,  with  Spaniards  in  plenty  and  pride,  and  of  mixed  people  not  a 
few.  But  are  they  worse  than  the  Indians  of  our  own  soil  ?  On  the  con 
trary,  they  are  far  better.  They  are  tractable,  stout,  and  laborious. 
Spain  managed  them  with  but  a  handful  of  soldiers  for  three  hundred 
years.  She  managed  them,  too,  under  every  provocation  to  revolt.  Had 
an  American  protectorate  been  the  sequence  of  Scott's  occupation,  a  few 
months  of  protection  would  have  given  their  industry  its  reward  and 
peace  its  blessing.  Then,  too,  we  should  have  no  apprehension  to  disturb 
our  present  relations  with  Mexico. 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  119 

To  these  relations  I  propose  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House.  In 
the  discussion,  I  need  only  remark,  historically,  that  on  the  discovery  of 
this  continent  there  was  but  one  nation  in  North,  and  one  in  South  Amer 
ica,  which  seemed  to  be  possessed  of  any  civilized  advancement.  Peru, 
under  the  Incas,  whose  white  robes  betokened  the  almost  divine  simplicity 
of  the  people  ;  and  Mexico  with  a  society  that  was  Arcadian  in  its  sim 
plicity,  and  with  a  polity  wonderful  in  its  complications.  The  State, 
the  priesthood,  the  cultivators  of  the  soil,  the  rulers,  and  the  ruled  of 
Mexico,  lived  in  peace  under  a  lovelier  sky  than  that  of  Naples,  and  on  a 
richer  soil  than  that  of 'ancient  Latium.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  this 
prosperity  and  contentment  were  not  alone  the  result  of  good  laws,  but  of 
good  land  ;  of  good  manners,  but  of  good  mines.  There  was,  in  the  Aztec 
tongue,  no  language  of  cupidity,  though  gold  roofed  the  temple  and  jasper 
built  the  altar. 

I  need  not  repeat  that  this  isolated  case  of  civilization  on  this  northern 
continent  was  mostly  the  result  of  the  unparalleled  climate  and  soil.  That 
climate  and  soil  remain.  Three  hundred  years  of  misrule  have  not  im 
paired  the  salubrity  of  the  one,  nor  detracted  from  the  wealth  of  the  other. 

The  Spanish  rule  at  length  was  thrown  off  for  a  Republic  like  ours. 
The  inborn  strength  to  throw  it  off,  after  so  long  a  trial,  showed  a  spirit 
of  freedom  which  received  its  plaudits  from  this  nation  at  the  time.  In 
February,  1821,  at  Iguala,  Mexico  declared  her  independence.  On  the 
4th  of  October,  1824,  she  adopted  her  constitution.  England  was  first  to 
recognize  this  progress,  and,  as  usual,  for  her  profit.  The  lower  clergy 
and  the  masses,  consisting  of  Indians,  were  its  creators  and  beneficiaries. 
The  upper  clergy  never  sympathized  with  this  severance  from  Europe  ; 
and  until  the  revolution  of  Ayutla,  consummated  by  Comonfort,  they 
never  became  a  power  in  politics.  His  policy  touched  their  estates. 
They  struck  back.  His  law  of  desamortizacion  confiscated  $18,000,000 
of  their  property,  which  passed  to  private  individuals.  They  struck  back, 
even  at  this  compromise  confiscation.  Comonfort  reeled  under  their 
blow  ;  reeled  from  the  Puros  to  the  Moderados,  and  from  the  Moclerados 
to  the  Church  and  its  conservative  defenders,  into  whose  arms  he  and  his 
anti-Church  policy  fell.  We  need  not  wonder  at  these  changes,  when  we 
remember  that  a  magnificent  and  organized  hierarchy  held  $300,000,000 
of  property,  with  a  revenue  of  $20,000.000,  being  $5,000,000  more  than 
the  best  annual  Government  revenue. 

Mr.  Gushing  said,  at  Richmond,  that  these  party  names  of  Liberal, 
Constitutional,  Pure,  Moderate,  Central,  and  Federal,  so  often  appearing 
in  our  Mexican  news,  "  were  but  the  watchwords  of  contending  factions, 
efficient  alike  only  to  waste  their  common  country."  Hardly  true  ;  for  it 
must  be  remembered  that  in  Mexico,  as  in  all  nations,  there  will  be  par 
ties  founded  on  interest  or  hope,  conservative  or  radical,  with  intervening 
moderate  shades.  There  is  in  Mexico,  well-defined,  a  Central,  Federal, 
or  Conservative  party,  under  whose  rally  men  of  wealth  and  of  the  Church, 
and  of  unprogressive  temperament,  naturally  gather.  This  party  would 
centralize  power  in  the  federal  Government*,  and  thereby  become  aggres 
sive  upon  the  States.  It  would  lean  toward  a  strong  government ;  and 
hence  its  eye  is  ever  on  tradition  and  Spain.  It  would  to-day  hail  Spain 
or  France  as  its  master  to  attain  its  end.  Santa  Anna,  Zuloaga,  and 


120  EIGHT   YEAES   EST   CONGRESS. 

Roblefe  have  been  its  executive  representatives.  Miramon  assumes  the 
same  position  just  now.  The  natural  antagonists  of  this  party  are  the 
Puros,  the  Moderados,  Constitutionalists,  Democrats,  or  call  them  what 
you  will.  Federal  restraint  to  them  is  irksome  ;  Europe  and  kingcraft 
hateful ;  and  the  Church  despotic  and  avaricious.  In  the  language  of  Mr. 
Gadsden  to  Alvarez,  in  June,  1855,  "  they  would  limit  the  central  power 
to  that  alone  which  is  exterior ;  and  tmis  they  would  seek,  like  the  United 
States,  to  grow  without  anarchy  into  strength  and  prosperity."  Their 
aspiration  is  for  a  republic  like  our  own.  They  need  and  deserve  our 
sympathy.  Juarez  is  their  Executive — a  pure  Indian,  whose  descent  is 
from  Montezuma.  Degollado  is  their  general,  and  Mata  their  minister, 
x  seeking  recognition  here.  This  party  have  a  majority  of  the  States  and 
nine-tenths  of  the  people  of  Mexico  with  them.  They  have  the  revenues. 
They  hold  the  ports.  Their  President  is  de  jure  and  de  facto  Executive. 
A  little  more  patience,  Mr.  Forsyth,  and  you  would  have  recognized  it 
thus,  and  not  (as  you  did)  otherwise  !  De  jure ;  for,  by  the  Constitution 
of  Mexico,  adopted  by  an  extraordinary  Congress,  at  the  Capitol,  February 
5,  1857,  it  was  provided,  by  section  seventy-nine,  that — 

"  In  temporary  default  of  a  President  of  the  Republic,  and  in  the  vacancy  before  the 
installation  of  the  newly-elected  President,  the  president  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice 
shall  enter  upon  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  President." 

And,  article  thirty-two  : 

"  If,  from  whatever  reason,  the  election  of  President  shall  not  have  been  made  and 
published  by  December  1st,  upon  which  the  change  is  to  take  place,  or  if  the  newly  elect- 
ed  is  not  able  to  enter  promptly  upon  the  exercise  of  his  functions,  the  term  of  the  pre 
ceding  President  shall  nevertheless  cease,  and  the  supreme  executive  power  shall  be  de 
posited  ad  interim  in  the  president  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice." 

When,  therefore,  on  the  llth  of  January,  1858,  General  Comonfort 
vacated  the  Presidency,  the  Constitution  devolved  the  office  upon  Benito 
Juarez,  the  president  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice.  De  facto  ;  for  he 
holds  the  field,  and  has  the  money  and  the  masses.  The  Federal  army,  it 
is  true,  was  not  at  his  command.  Felix  Zuloaga  was  illegally  named  Dic 
tator  by  a  clique  at  the  capital,  January  22, 1858  ;  and  he  having  the  army, 
and  holding  the  capital,  Juarez  transferred  the  administration  to  Vera 
Cruz.  There  was  no  such  officer  known  as  Dictator,  and  Zuloaga  has 
paid  the  penalty  of  usurpation  by  deposition.  There  can  be  but  one  ex 
ecutive,  and  Robles,  who  assumed  Zuloaga's  place,  was  not  that  officer. 
The  Constitution  under  which  Juarez  acts  is  the  only  organic  law,  and 
that  does  not  recognize  the  junta  which  elected  Miramon,  to  whom  Robles 
yielded  his  fasces.  This  Constitution  is  the  rallying  cry  of  the  Liberals ; 
to  its  defence  the  nation  is  committed  ;  by  it  alone  is  order  possible.  To 
sustain  its  upholders  is  clearly  the  duty,  as  it  is  the  interest  and  desire,  of 
the  United  States.  President  Buchanan  has  well  considered  these  facts. 
In  the  success  of  the  constitutional  party  he  places  all  his  hopes  of  redress 
for  the  innumerable  outrages  to  our  citizens.  If  this  party  fail,  and  there 
"  being  abundant  cause  for  a  resort  to  hostilities  against  the  Government 
now  holding  possession  of  the  capital,"  I  am  ready  to  vote  for  any  sys 
tem  of  reprisal,  or  to  grant  the  Executive  the  power  to  take  possession 
of  any  portion  of  Mexico,  as  a  pledge  for  the  settlement  of  our  cluims. 
I  say  that  I  am  ready  to  vote  for  such  reprisal  or  occupation.  But  I 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  121 

have  considered  these  parties  in  Mexico  with  the  view  of  qualifying  this 
declaration.  I  believe  that  it  would  be  best,  at  once,  to  recognize  the 
Juarez  Constitutional  Government,  by  the  most  solemn  assurances  of 
sympathy  and  protection.  The  late  news  makes  this  step  imminently  ur 
gent.  This  can  be  done,  first,  by  the  prompt  recognition  of  Mata,  who 
is  here  seeking  such  recognition  ;  second,  by  the  sending  of  a  naval  force 
to  the  Gulf,  where  we  are  unrepresented.  This  force  should  be  accom 
panied  by  a  commissioner  to  treat  with  the  Juarez  Government ;  to  coun 
teract  the  influence  of  the  allied  fleets  now  aiding  Miramon  and  Robles, 
and  threatening  Juarez  ;  and  with  the  latter  to  cement  an  alliance,  and  to 
obtain  such  a  settlement  of  our  claims  and  difficulties  as  will  comport 
with  our  interest  and  honor.  I  have  the  surest  authority  for  saying,  that 
such  an  arrangement  would  give  us,  not  only  a  firm  union  with  Mexico, 
not  only  postal  and  extradition  and  right-of-way  treaties,  not  only  a  foot 
hold  in  the  northern  Mexican  States,  which  can  be  made  permanent  with 
out  war  ;  but  it  would  foil  every  attempt  of  the  European  alliance  to  con 
trol  the  affairs  of  Mexico.  It  would  crush  the  Robles-Miramon  Govern 
ment,  elevate  and  organize  the  Democratic  American  sentiment,  and  give 
us  an  alliance  of  peace,  which  is  the  precursor  of  a  magnificent  com 
merce. 

If,  however,  we  seize  Sonora  and  Chihuahua,  without  an  understand 
ing  with  the  Constitutional  Government,  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Poor 
and  miserable  as  is  the  condition  of  Mexico,  she  would  likely  declare 
war.  Such  a  declaration  would  come  from  the  Robles-Miramon  faction. 
It  would  draw  to  that  faction  the  strength  of  the  nation.  It  would,  per 
haps,  crush  Juarez  and  his  party,  and  leave  us  no  better  off  than  if  we 
had  pursued  a  more  politic  and  pacific  course. 

Again,  if  we  delay  to  recognize  the  Constitutional  Government,  it 
will  soon  be  in  power  at  the  capital  as  it  is  in  the  provinces.  It  can  then 
say  to  us,  'b  Oh,  yes ;  you  would  not  help  us  in  our  extremity,  when  your 
advantage  should  have  prompted  you,  and  your  sympathy  would  have 
been  of  service.  We  can  get  along  without  your  aid  now.  Touch  not  a 
foot  of  our  soil,  on  the  penalty  of  an  endless  difficulty."  Wisdom,  inter 
est,  the  law  of  American  progress,  and  the  predominance  of  our  Union 
on  this  continent,  all  urge  the  course  I  have  indicated.  Juarez  waits  our 
action.  Shall  we  miss  the  golden  opportunity?  If  we  fail  in  our  efforts 
with  him,  then  I  am  willing  at  once  to  take  Sonora  and  Chihuahua, 
whichever  party  succeeds. 

I  believe  that  the  list  of  American  claims  and  cruelties,  which  has 
even  provoked  the  English  press  to  wonder  at  our  forbearance,  is  warrant 
enough  for  such  possession.  There  are  even  yet  higher  grounds  for  such 
seizure.  The  French  Minister,  De  Gabriac,  rules  in  the  Miramon  coun 
cils.  A  French  fleet  rides  before  Sacrificios.  The  French  admiral  was 
very  ready  to  back  Spain  in  her  demands.  To  break  this  French  power 
is  our  imperative  duty.  If  it  be  not  broken,  our  line  of  extension  south 
ward  to  Central  America  will  be  broken  irrevocably. 

Such  is  the  condition  of  parties  in  Mexico.  I  need  not  discuss  it 
further.  The  contest  now  is  between  the  democratic  element  and  the 
conservative  element.  The  latter  has  its  eye  ever  on  Europe,  and  averse 
to  the  United  States.  Its  rule  has  proved  the  most  distracting  and  dis- 


122  EIGHT  YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

astrous  ever  yet  known  in  the  annals  of  the  South  American  Republics, 
where  the  earthquake  and  the  revolution  alike  awake  the  same  sad  cry 
of  anguish,  and  receive  the  same  defiant,  destructive  answer. 

I  need  not  have  pictured  this  land  of  beauty  and  order  as  it  was  once, 
to  heighten  the  contrast  of  its  present  condition.  After  thirty-eight  years 
of  debilitating  spasms,  we  find,  to-day,  the  spectacle  of  Mexico  helpless, 
bleeding,  dying ;  the  Turkey  of  the  western  world ;  and  capable  of  no 
effort  even  of  resistance  to  the  Spanish  fleet,  much  less  to  the  French  or 
English.  Rapacity,  crime,  chaos,  craft,  license,  and  brutality ;  indolence 
only  active  to  wrong,  and  industry  quickened  only  for  vice ;  laws  made 
for  their  infraction,  and  order  to  be  contemned.  Mountain  cries  unto  valley 
for  relief ;  and  from  hacienda  to  city  goes  up  the  agony  of  despair.  This 
is  unhappy  Mexico,  in  whose  fate  no  nation  ever  can  have  the  interest 
we  have  till  such  a  nation  conquer  us.  Who  shall  intervene? 

Were  it  only  the  natives  who  suffered,  we  might  stand  aloof,  and  say, 
"  They  have  made  their  bed  ;  let  them  lie  in  it."  But  even  this  would  be 
culpable  indifference.  Good  neighborhood  does  not  thus  do  its  office. 
The  artisans  of  the  city  of  Mexico  are  out  of  employment,  and  hungering 
for  food.  Let  this  one  fact  speak  volumes.  In  the  three  pawnbroking 
establishments  of  the  city,  called  Montes  de  Piedad,  the  last  year,  there 
were  68,000  borrowers  out  of  a  population  of  185,000  ;  $912,000  was 
loaned,  and  $869,000  paid  for  its  use.  With  an  army  of  11,700  men,  of 
whom  5,800  are  officers,  and  a  debt  of  $120,000,000,  and  an  expenditure 
by  two  Governments  ;  with  but  one-eighth  of  her  arable  soil  cultivated, 
and  her  mines  un worked,  or  if  worked  the  treasures  at  the  mercy  of  the 
red  guerrilleros  who  infest  every  avenue  of  intercourse ;  with  every  one 
of  her  twenty-two  States  and  six  Territories  parading  an  array  of  contend 
ing  forces  and  ambitious  guerilla  chiefs  ;  Garza  and  Vidaurri  conferring 
in  the  North  to  move  down  and  check  the  Federalists  of  the  interior ; 
Pesquiera  about  to  move  on  Mazatlan  ;  Alatriste  on  the  plains  of  Apam  ; 
Camafion,  from  Matamoras  de  Izucar,  waiting  to  besiege  Puebla  ;  Blanco 
in  Michoacan  ;  Iturbide  in  the  Bahia  ;  Marquez  repulsed  from  the  Puente 
Calderon,  around  which  gather  the  combating  forces  under  Miramoa, 
Brocha,  and  Degollado  ;  Mejia  defeated  by  the  liberal  forces  under  Pueb- 
lita  and  Huerta ;  the  environs  of  the  capital  swarming  with  the  Liberal 
soldiery ;  this  was  the  picture  of  a  few  days  ago  ! 

The  scene  changes.  The  Federal  chief  Echeagaray  betrays  Zuloaga, 
and,  in  collusion  with  Robles,  makes  the  latter  chief.  Echeagaray  in  turn 
is  imprisoned  at  Puebla  ;  is  about  to  be  shot ;  when,  lo  !  an  insurrection 
in  the  city  of  Mexico  saves  him,  and  Zuloaga  rushes  to  the  English  flag 
for  protection.  In  this  complication,  a  junta  is  called  to  settle  the  diffi 
culty  ;  and  who  should  be  chosen  but  Miramon,  a  dashing  young  general, 
flushed  with  his  successes  over  the  Liberals,  and  who  moves  toward  the 
city  under  the  fluttering  pennons  of  his  cavalry.  Meanwhile  young  Alva 
rez  and  Villava  lead  their  speckled  Pintos  down  on  the  warm  lowlands 
for  pillage  ;  while  Juarez,  dignified  and  statesmanlike,  holds  his  rule  in 
Vera  Cruz,  the  commercial  metropolis.  Mexican  conducta  go  down  to 
the  sea  under  the  French  flag,  to  get  his  revenues,  to  help  one  party  by 
robbing  the  other ;  while  the  fleets  of  the  three  great  nations  of  Europe 
gather  on  her  coasts,  and  ask,  from  their  gaping  gun-mouths,  the  results 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  123 

of  spent  plunder !  It  is  as  if  Dives  should  besiege  Lazarus  with  a  bowie 
knife  and  revolver,  and  bid  him  disgorge  the  furtive  crumb,  as  indemnity 
for  the  past  arid  security  for  the  future  !  Fifty  generald  and  a  nation  of 
seven  millions,  not  knowing  what  may  be  their  fate  !  The  Agiotistas 
hold  the  money  and  oppress  with  it.  The  generals  murder  and  pillage  in 
gross,  and  the  bandits  in  detail.  Indians  never  before  in  arms  rush  to 
them  for  self-preservation.  Foreigners,  ever  at  the  mercy  of  these  fickle 
factions,  find  no  protection  in  their  flags,  and  no  hope  but  in  passive  sub 
mission  to  forced  loans  and  open  robbery.  This  is  the  spectacle  of  muti 
lated  Mexico  to-day.  To-morrow  it  may  be  worse  ! 

I  repeat  it.  Who  shall  intervene  f  Some  one  must.  Our  interest  is 
paramount.  Why  this  interest  ?  Not  only  our  proximity  to  Mexico ; 
not  alone  the  number  of  our  citizens  domiciliated  in  the  country ;  but  a 
common  interest  in  the  development,  in  retouching,  as  it  were,  into  its 
primeval  color  and  grace,  of  that  elder  beauty  which  Spain  tarnished  and 
anarchs  have  torn  to  shreds.  Our  interest  lies  first  in  Mexico's  erect  and 
orderly  independency.  If  that  be  no  longer  possible,  then  that  no  Power 
but  our  own  shall  guard  its  weakness  and  administer  its  estate.  This  is 
the  only  programme  which  this  nation  can  tolerate,  and  by  which  it  dare 
abide  and  survive  or  grow ! 

As  to  our  proximity :  the  reasons  on  this  head  for  our  intervention 
are  well  set  forth  in  the  President's  message  ;  I  cannot  add  to  its  force. 
A  temporary  protectorate  will  effectually,  if  not  nominally,  give  us  the 
States  of  Sonora  and  Chihuahua.  They  are  very  sparsely  populated, 
there  being  about  three  hundred  thousand  persons  to  their  two  hundred 
and  twenty-three  thousand  seven  hundred  and  ten  square  miles.  These 
lands  are  represented  as  delightful  in.  climate  and  rich  in  resources,  agri 
cultural  and  mineral.  They  have  been  described  as  the  land  of  the  blessed 
in  Oriental  story.  -  Summer  and  winter,  table  land  and  valley,  are  nearer 
akin  here  than  in  most  places  in  the  world.  Silver  is  in  their  streams — 
in  lodes  with  crests  elevated  above  the  ground.  Spain  demonstrated  their 
riches  ;  but  the  nomadic  Apaches  swept  over  this  Eldorado,  and  left  but  a 
memory  of  its  treasures  which  American  enterprise  is  already  vitalizing 
into  a  reality. 

Is  it  objected  by  southern  gentlemen  that  these  States  must  become 
free,  and  not  slave  States  ?  You  have  been  claiming  your  constitutional 
rights.  Where  is  there  a  word  about  the  equilibrium  of  the  States  in 
the  Constitution?  Under  it  you  have  equality  of  rights,  but  no  right  of 
equality  in  the  number  of  States.  This  equality  is  not  of  arithmetic, 
but  of  political  ethics.  The  moment  you  claim  equilibrium  of  States, 
that  moment  your  honor  is  compromised  and  your  loyalty  to  the  Consti 
tution  is  questioned. 

Do  you  say,  "  We  will  favor  this  protectorate  if  Tamaulipas  and 
New  Leon  are  included  "  ?  Very  well ;  try  that.  I  will  vote  for  it,  or 
vote  to  include  any  other  State  where  you  think  you  can  raise  coffee 
and  sugar,  and  can  outvie  the  North  in  the  race  of  colonization  and 
power.  I  will  gladly  vote  for  a  protectorate  over  an  independent  federa 
tion  of  States  north  of  the  Sierra  Madre. 

Mr.  MILLSON.     I  want  to  know  under  what  authority  the  gentleman 


124  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

from  Ohio  represents  southern  gentlemen  as  desiring  all  these  Mexican 
States? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  not  so  represented  them.  I  say,  southern  gentle 
man  may  not  wish  to  take  Sonora  and  Chihuahua,  lest  they  might  be 
come  free  States,  and  not  slave  States.  It  was  a  suggestion  made  to  me 
by  a  southern  member,  and  I  said  to  him,  "  Come  along ;  we  will  put  in 
Tamaulipas  and  New  Leon.  We  will  link  them  hand  in  hand."  For 
myself,  I  am  willing  to  give  protection  to  northern  Mexico  ;  if  not  for 
annexation,  for  a  free  trade  which  will  be  of  mutual  advantage,  and  will 
be  practical  absorption.  It  \vill  at  least  prepare  these  States  for  admis 
sion.  Let  Monterey  be  the  nucleus  of  Zacatecas,  San  Luis,  Queretaro, 
Tamaulipas,  Coahuila,  New  Leon,  Chihuahua,  and  Sonora — all  the  States 
between  the  Rio  Bravo  and  the  Gulf  of  California ;  all  natural  allies  in 
the  interests  of  the  United  States.  Let  them  cluster  in  upon  our  ensign, 
not  star  by  star,  but  in  a  galaxy.  By  that,  you  do  at  once  what  will  in 
time  be  done  by  the  natural  laws  of  development.  Besides,  you  raise  our 
present  feeble  trade  of  seven  millions  to  twenty-eight  which  Great  Britain 
enjoys.  You  can  thus  enhance  every  inch  of  soil,  and  every  shining  par 
ticle  of  ore  in  these  regions. 

As  to  the  question  of  protecting  our  citizens  already  in  Mexico,  and 
demanding  reparation  for  wrongs  done  them,  this  should  be  a  capital  cause 
of  intervention  in  Mexican  matters.  Senator  MASON'S  bill  is  rightly 
predicated  on  this  cause.  If  Spain  could  make  the  Liberals  pay  for  the 
murder  and  spoliation  of  Spanish  subjects  at  San  Vicente,  Chiconcuaque, 
Durango,  and  elsewhere,  in  Comonfort's  time,  why  are  we  asleep  over 
the  rights  of  our  citizens  ?  I  have  before  me  a  list  of  these  claims,  but  a 
very  imperfect  one.  Each  claim  is  a  casus  belli.  Here  are  some  dozen 
cases  of  illegal  seizure  of  American  property.  I  saw  it  noticed  that  some 
eleven  millions  were  already  calculated  at  our  State  Department.  We 
have  grievances  beyond  money.  The  sentences  in  relation  to  illegal  mar 
riages  are  a  wrong  to  those  without  the  established  Church,  and  degrade  to 
crime  the  holy  relations  of  parentage  and  wedlock  ;  the  infamous  surveil 
lance  of  the  post  office  over  American  letters,  refusing  to  deliver  even  the 
United  States  consular  correspondence,  unless  it  were  first  inspected  by 
Mexican  authorities ;  and  worse  still,  the  rude,  cruel,  and  brutal  arrest 
and  imprisonment  of  Chaplin,  Stocker,  Ainsi,  and  Garcia,  are  enough  to 
make  the  Haynaus  of  Austria  pale  beside  the  imbruted  and  unbridled 
scoundrelism  of  Mexican  officers.  The  story  of  Ainsi,  seized  on  Ameri 
can  soil,  sixteen  months  in  the  prisons  of  Sonora,  wearing  the  barra  de 
grillas ;  and  that  sad,  saddest  of  all  stories,  the  massacre  of  his  brother-in- 
law,  Crabbc,  and  his  confederates,  whose  characters  have  been  blackened 
to  rob  their  murder  of  its  heinousness  ;  these  should  move  the  very  stones 
to  sympathy. 

In  this  matter  the  United  States  have  but  one  duty.  These  sufferers 
were  our  citizens.  Wherever  that  character  of  citizenship  is  to  be  found, 
the  individual  bearing  it  is  clothed  with  the  nationality  of  the  Union. 
Whoever  the  man  may  be,  whether  native-born,  naturalized,  or  semi-natu 
ralized,  he  can  claim  the  protection  of  this  Government.  It  may  respond 
to  that  claim  without  being  obliged  to  explain  its  conduct  to  any  foreign 
Power ;  u  for  it  is  its  duty  to  make  its  nationality  respected  by  other  na- 


FOREIGN   AFFAIES.  125 

tions  and  respectable  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe."  This  doctrine  was  illus 
trated  in  the  Koszta  case.  What  difference  is  there  between  a  dungeon  in 
Guaymas,  where  Ainsi  lay  in  chains,  and  the  Austrian  brig  Huzzar,  which 
held  the  body  of  the  Hungarian  ? 

The  outrages  upon  our  citizens' are  not  confined  to  Mexico.  In  every 
Spanish  American  State  they  are  common.  In  Peru,  in  Paraguay,  in 
New  Granada,  in  Cuba,  in  Costa  Rica,  in  all  places  where  the  slanders  of  the 
Madrid  press  against  the  "  peddling  traders  of  the  North  "  enter,  we  have  to 
meet  persecution,  imprisonment,  illegal  seizure  of  property  and  person, 
and  an  unwinking  espionage  ;  and  that,  too,  under  taunts  more  galling, 
because  we  know  how  easy  it  would  be  to  punish  such  outrages.  We 
should  examine  the  list  of  claims  on  Spanish-American  States  to  appre 
ciate  the  divine  forbearance  of  our  inactivity.  A  settlement  with  Mexico 
would  be  a  general  settlement  with  Spanish  America. 

This  duty  of  intervention  becomes  at  once  imperative  and  dignified, 
when  we  remember  that,  by  such  an  act,  we  do  not  only  protect  our  citi 
zens,  but  we  save  Mexico.  We  not  only  save  her  from  Spain,  France, 
and  England,  but  from  herself.  This  is  no  conquest  of  Cortes.  It  is  the 
salvation  of  a  people  whose  interests  will  be  bettered  by  our  aid.  Without 
such  aid,  the  fairest  part  of  this  continent  will  be  a  ruin — only  the  worse 
because,  like  the  Parthenon,  its  fragments  will  remain  to  show  the  beauty 
and  richness  of  its  former  condition. 

In  conclusion,  the  policy  I  have  indicated  with  respect  to  this  conti 
nent,  and  the  application  of  which  to  Cuba,  Central  America,  and  Mexico, 
will  be  of  such  benefit  to  them,  will  enable  us  to  conform  to  that  law  of 
growth  by  which  alone  we  have  become  great,  and  by  which  alone  we 
can  become  greater.  This  is  the  policy  of  other  nations,  and  they  have 
met  obstacles  to  accomplish  it.  We  shall  accomplish  it,  but  we  shall  have 
them  as  our  obstacles.  England  has  swept  with  her  power  from  the 
Shannon  to  the  Indus.  She  should  be  content,  as  we  are,  to  see  her  great 
ness  repeated  in  the  career  of  her  offspring.  Yet  she  daily  calls  our  at 
tempts  to  expand  by  the  rudest  terms.  France  has  twice  threatened 
Europe  with  continental  conquest,  and  now  organizes  the  Arabs  of  North 
ern  Africa,  the  granary  of  the  Roman  world,  for  her  march  upon  Egypt 
and  her  domination  of  the  Mediterranean.  Russia,  the  great  land  animal, 
is  piercing  Asia  at  every  vulnerable  point,  and  is  pressing  for  an  empire 
of  which  there  is  no  adequate  prophecy  in  the  Scriptures.  Even  Spain 
joins  her  arms  and  her  priesthood  with  France,  and  is  waging  against 
Cochin  China  a  war  which  her  journals  call  the  civilizing  s'pirit  of  the 
age,  impelling  the  force  of  Europe  to  break  down  the  barriers  which  divide 
that  race  from  humanity. 

Yet  all  of  these  nations,  except  Russia,  wrhich  has  ever  been  kind  and 
tolerant  toward  us,  are  this  day  in  league  to  prevent  the  stretch  of  our  in 
fluence  over  our  continent.  England,  holding  half  of  North  America,  is 
jealous  of  our  growth,  and  would  choke  us  at  the  isthmian  neck.  France 
would  crush  out  the  sympathies  of  the  white  republic  of  St.  Domingo  for 
the  United  States,  by  her  Chevalier  Reybaud,  charge  at  Hayti ;  and  she 
used  that  burlesque  of  emperors  and  that  ape  of  manhood,  Soulouque,  to 
Africanize  the  island,  to  overthrow  Santana,  and  to  break  down  the 
Cazneau  treaty  for  a  free  port  and  steam  depot,  and  for  advantages  to  our 


126  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

citizens  in  the  mines,  sugar  Lands,  and  mahogany  forests  of  that  island  ! 
France  again  appears  in  the  Sandwich  Islands  ;  at  the  Isthmus,  with  M. 
Belly ;  and  at  last  in  Mexico,  aiding  the  Spaniards,  and  in  sympathy  with 
the  Spaniards  of  Cuba,  to  foil  us  in  every  attempt  to  adjust  our  national 
relations  with  that  country.  Every  steamer  brings  us  a  lecture  from  Exeter 
Hall  on  our  slave  propagandist  fillibusterism.  And  may  we  not  go  for  its 
commentary  to  Copenhagen,  to  Ionia,  to  Gibraltar,  to  Malta,  to  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  to  the  Red  Sea,  to  Jamaica,  to  New  Zealand,  to  China, 
and  to  the  rajahs  of  all  India?  Why.  the  British  regime  in  India  was  a 
system  of  torture  more  exquisite  than  regal  or  spiritual  tyranny  ever  be 
fore  devised.  The  Sepoys  vainly  tried  to  copy  its  atrocities. 

Were  we  left  alone,  we  might  be  content  to  let  France  alone.  No 
American  would  whisper  a  "  nay  "  to  her  making  the  Mediterranean  a  French 
lake.  Her  genius  and  vivacity  can  make  its  waves  glow  with  the  light  of 
other  days.  That  sea  on  which  navigation  had  its  birth — the  maritime 
world  of  Greece,  Carthage,  Rome,  Tyre,  Sidon,  Turkey,  Egypt,  Persia, 
Venice,  and  Genoa — the  sea  of  Homer  and  David,  Jonah  and  St.  Paul, 
Ulysses  and  Neptune  ;  washing  the  base  of  Ararat  and  Olympus  ;  with  a 
world's  history  on  its  bosom,  and  whole  nations  in  its  bed  ;  the  American 
can  well  say,  let  its  guard  be  the  gallant  sons  of  France  !  He  could  say 
it  without  envy,  and  with  heartiness,  if  France  would  keep  her  navies  out 
of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  harbor  of  San  Juan. 

We  have  made  no  remonstrance  against  England  on  her  ceaseless 
round  of  empire — bloody,  cruel,  and  rapacious  as  it  has  been,  subjecting 
the  riches  of  Asia  to  her  commerce  and  her  greed.  We  know  the  law  by 
which  these  powerful  white  races  move.  It  will  be  irresistible.  France, 
England,  and  Russia  are  tending  to  a  common  .focus  at  the  Isthmus  of 
Suez,  as  France,  England,  and  the  United  States  are  at  Darien.  Start 
ing  from  opposite  points,  extra-European  conquest  converges  here.  Eng 
land  seeks  passage  across  Egypt  or*  Syria,  for  India  and  Australia,  and 
pounces  on  Perim  at  the  mouth  of  the  Red  Sea,  as  she  did  on  Gibraltar 
and  San  Juan.  France,  marching  her  army  of  Algeria,  presses  toward 
the  prize  to  realize  the  great  Napoleon's  dream  of  Egypt,  and  urges  her 
canal  at  Suez  as  she  is  striving  to  do  at  Nicaragua.  Russia,  semi-orien 
tal,  marches  through  western  Asia  and  Persia  down  upon  the  confines  of 
English  power  and  French  ambition,  and  finds  her  rivals  in  the  field. 
What  fine  reproaches  they  can  hurl  at  each  other  and  at  us  for  the  lust 
of  dominion,  when  they  gather  at  this  focus  of  former  civilization  !  What 
shocks  of  contending  forces  will  there  and  then  be  encountered  !  Let 
them  come  and  strive.  Let  Russia  push  its  caravans  across  the  steppes 
of  Tartary  until  the  trade  of  Kiachta  and  Irkootsk  rival  that  of  Canton 
and  Shanghai.  Let  France  divorce  Asia  from  Africa  by  marrying  the 
Red  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean  at  Suez ;  let  England  work  its  iron  way 
to  India  from  Beyrout  to  the  Euphrates  ;  let  the  steam  engine  labor  for 
the  millions  of  Asia  under  any  engineer ;  but  let  America  alone  in  her 
armies  of  occupation  to  open  the  Isthmus,  and  control  the  steam  and  com 
merce  centre  of  our  own  hemisphere. 

No  change  of  dynasty,  or  of  form  of  government,  can  check  this  ulti 
mate  condition  of  European  expansion  and  collision.  Such  a  change  may 
affect  the  relations  of  these  countries  to  ourselves.  The  illiberal  policy  of 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  127 

France  to  this  country  may  return  to  plague  its  inventor,  the  usurper  of 
France.  I  have  never  heard  his  hated  name  since  the  2d  of  December, 
that  I  could  repress  the  prayer,  which  now  I  pray  with  something  of  a 
Red  Republican  fervor,  that  France  may  have  barricades  on  the  Boule 
vards  ;  the  throne  in  flames,  as  that  of  Louis  Philippe  in  the  Place  du 
Carrousel ;  the  dynasty  which  he  seeks  to  perpetuate  cut  off,  or  flying  from 
the  rage  of  a  Red  Republic  ;  more  citizens  and  fewer  soldiers,  and  both  fra 
ternizing  to  the  music  of  the  Marseillaise  ;  exiles  returning  from  their  homes 
in  pestilential  swamps,  amidst  gay  and  festive  welcome  ;  prisons  break 
ing  ;  the  press  free  ;  the  Palais  de  Justice  open,  and  the  tri-color  of  a  new 
Republic  flashing  from  every  part  of  France,  and  topmost  on  the  Hotel  de 
Ville,  made  sacred  by  the  heroic  eloquence  of  Lamartine.  This  would  be 
a  fit  retribution  from  God  for  crimes  and  perjuries  ;  and  not  at  all  unfit  as 
the  reward  of  an  intermeddling  policy  with  the  republican  interests  of  the 
New  World ! 

Let  us  be  decided !  These  European  Powers  cannot,  and  do  not,  have 
peace.  The  bugles  of  truce  sounded  at  the  conference  of  Paris.  Heralds 
proclaimed  peace  in  every  capital.  But  the  war  harness  is  not  off.  It  is 
burnished  anew,  and  the  weapons  within  reach !  England,  trembling  at 
the  one  hundred  thousand  soldiers  across  the  channel,  and  the  naval  won 
ders  at  Cherbourg,  commences  to  build  coast  defences.  Russia  acquires 
Villa  Franca,  and  stirs  insurrection  in  Ionia  against  England.  Mazzini 
issues  his  rescript  to.  the  secret  societies  and  Republicans  of  Italy  to  be 
ready  and  one  as  the  thought  of  Italy  and  God.  The  coin  of  "  Emanuel, 
the  King  of  Italy,"  is  circulated  through  the  peninsula.  An  actress  moves 
the  people  of  Venice  to  insurrection  by  a  recitative  which  reminds  them  of 
their  patriotism.  Austria  arms,  and  Piedmont  proposes  to  repel.  France 
sends  more  troops  to  Rome.  Austria  growls.  France  obtains  from  the 
Swiss  a  strong  strategic  post,  and  Austria  growls  again.  Naples  insults 
Napoleon  to  please  Austria.  England  writes  bitterly  against  Naples,  and 
does  not  spare  the  prosecutor  of  Montalembert.  England  shakes  with  a 
new  reform  movement — John  Bright  striving  to  Americanize  her  by  pop 
ular  sovereignty.  Turkey  is  unsettled  in  Europe  and  in  Asia.  Russia 
moves  on,  immense  and  great — the  envy  of  all.  A  lighted  match  may 
flash  this  magazine  into  a  terrific  blaze,  whose  thunder  will  make  all  Eu 
rope  quake.  The  alliances  of  to-day,  in  Europe,  for  her  own  balance  of 
power,  may  be  dissolved  by  a  popular  breath  to-morrow.  As  a  conse 
quence,  they  cannot  be  relied  on  to  pursue  us  to  any  fatal  end. 

Already  England  has  pushed  this  alliance  with  France  to  its  snapping 
point.  The  English  people  will  not  permit  their  aristocracy  to  carry  it  so 
far  as  to  make  it  an  offence  to  the  people  of  this  commercial  nation.  Not 
but  that  the  English  Government  would  like  to  aid  France  in  checking  our 
career ;  but  trade  is  powerful  for  peace,  and  peace  with  us  means  cotton 
in  England.  Let  England  find  cotton  elsewhere,  and  our  Southern  friends 
may  be  assured  that  her  intercourse  with  us  will  be  no  longer  peaceful. 
Gentlemen  need  not  flatter  themselves  either,  that  cotton  is  their  peculiar 
staple.  Why  is  England  trying  every  appliance  to  reach  central  China? 
To  clothe  in  her  fabrics  the  four  hundred  millions  of  Chinese  ?  No.  They 
are  thus  clothed,  and  mark  it,  by  nankeen,  which  is  the  stupendous  growth 
of  their  own  great  central  valley,  estimated  now  to  produce  more  than 


128  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

double  the  cotton  raised  in  all  our  southern  States  put  together.*  This 
valley  being  England's,  Manchester  and  Stockport  can  snap  their  fingers  at 
Charleston  and  Mobile,  and  English  audacity  will  begin  a  new  career 
of  rapacity  and  insolence  toward  us.  Her  jealousy  of  us  is  intus  et  in  cute. 
Our  reliance  must  be  on  our  own  strength  and  growth.  If  we  cannot 
enact  the  Monroe  doctrine  into  international  law,  we  can  create  and  con 
secrate  it  as  a  national  sentiment.  Let  it  be  the  national  genius.  Let  it 
be  the  power  of  Aladdin's  lamp.  You  remember  the  story.  The  old  lamp 
from  its  friction  evoked  from  the  cave  a  mighty  spirit ;  awed  by  its  terrors, 
the  poor  youth  only  ventured  at  first  to  employ  its  powers  in  familiar  af 
fairs  ;  but  gradually  accustomed  to  its  presence,  he  employed  it  to  con 
struct  palaces,  to  amass  treasures,  to  baflle  armies,  to  triumph  over  foes, 
to  wield  the  elements  of  air,  light,  and  heat,  until,  at  the  close  of  the  story, 
the  poor  youth  becomes  the  sovereign  of  a  peaceful  empire  assured  to  his 
remote  posterity ! 

This  story,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  type  of  our  political  genius.  By  it  we 
have  fortified  ourselves  in  our  domestic  interests.  Our  domestic  and  ter 
ritorial  policy  is  fixed  under  its  guidance.  It  is  the  instrument  of  that 
progress  which  must  keep  pace  with  steam  and  telegraph,  until  we  are 
assured  of  an  empire  with  which  kingcraft  dare  not  meddle  ;  or  meddling, 
find  it  a  power  to  baffle  its  force  of  arms,  and  its  fraud  of  diplomacy. 
We  have  become  a  Colossus  on  this  continent,  with  a  strength  and  stride 
that  will  and  must  be  heeded.  With  our  domestic  policy  as  to  local 
governments  established,  we  can  go  on  and  Americanize  this  continent, 
and  make  it  what  Providence  intended  it  should  become,  by  a  perpetual 
growth  and  an  unsevered  Union — the  paragon  in  history  for  order,  har 
mony,  happiness,  and  power ! 


MEXICO. 

LAWS   OF   NATIONAL   GROWTH — MEXICAN   RECOGNITION — MONROE   DOCTRINE — PROPHECIES  AS  TO 
FRENCH   INTERVENTION — MANIFEST   DESTINY — EUROPEAN   AGGRANDIZEMENT. 

Ox  the  19th  of  March,  1860,  Mr.  Cox  said :  In  speaking  to  the  mo 
tion  to  refer  the  bill  and  amendment  under  consideration,  I  premise  that, 
before  that  vote  can  be  intelligently  taken,  our  relations  with  Mexico 
must  be  considered.  If  it  be  objected  that  this  discussion  is  inappropri 
ate  on  this  motion,  I  say  that  the  late  news  from  Vera  Cruz,  before 
which  Miramon  is  now  hovering  with  his  army,  and  the  projected  armis- 

*  When  this  remark  was  made,  Hon.  HUMPHREY  MARSHALL,  who  was  a  member  at  the 
time,  anil  who  had  been  our  Minister  to  China,  called  it  in  question ;  in  fact,  saying  that 
cotton  was  rather  imported  into  China.  He  had  forgotten  that,  although  along  the  coast 
England  had  traded  her  cotton  off  to  the  Chinese,  the  vast  interior  was  not  reached  by 
trade  at  all.  Since  then,  cotton  has  been  struggling  for  his  sceptre.  His  claims  have  been 
thoroughly  investigated ;  and  by  none  more  exhaustively  than  by  the  Hon.  F.  A.  CONKLING, 
from  whose  pamphlet  I  learn  that  China  last  year  exported  to  England  399,074  bales,  be 
sides  large  quantities  which  went  into  the  United  States  and  France.  This  was  in  addition 
to  the  home  consumption,  as  to  which  it  is  alleged  that,  "Every  morning  throughout  tho 
Chinese  Empire,  there  are  three  hundred  millions  of  blue  cotton  breeches  drawn  over 
human  legs.  Men,  women,  and  children  alike  wear  them." 


FOKEIGN   AFFAIRS.  129 

tice  tendered  by  England  to  the  belligerents,  make  it  important  that  at  no 
other  point  of  the  Mexican  boundary  should  these  relations  be  compli 
cated.  Mexicans  and  Indians  are  devastating  the  Rio  Grande  country. 
The  Governor  of  Texas  asks  Federal  aid.  If  it  be  not  granted,  he 
threatens  to  conquer  a  peace  on  Mexican  soil.  A  war  with  Mexico,  as 
its  result,  would  not  only  embarrass  the  relations  of  this  country  with 
respect  to  the  late  treaty,  but  it  concerns  the  honor  and  interests  of  our 
citizens  commorant  in  Mexico. 

Europe  has  her  continental  politics  ;  America  has  hers.  England 
sends  ambassadors,  and  France  armies,  to  Italy ;  the  one  to  foil  Austria, 
the  other  to  fight  her  ;  and  both  to  rescue  Italy,  as  well  from  her  invaders 
as  from  her  own  immoderation.  We  have  our  Italy.  Not  alone  is  Mex 
ico  our  Italy  by  her  natural  beauty,  production,  soil,  sky,  romance,  and 
history,  but  Mexico  is  our  political  Italy.  She  is  torn  to  shreds  by  those 
who  are  fighting  over  the  parting  of  her  garments.  Such  is  the  present 
condition  of  Mexico,  and  such  is  our  interest  in  it,  that  we  cannot  be 
either  idle  or  indifferent  to  its  fate.  It  is  one  of  those  cases  of  great 
public  distress  which  lie  at  our  very  doors.  We  cannot  avoid  seeing  it. 
It  is  in  our  path,  as  an  obstruction  to  our  progress  and  a  menace  to  our 
peace.  Self-interest,  if  not  republican  sympathy,  demands  from  us  for 
Mexico  our  quickest  heart  throb  and  our  most  active  intervention. 

Mr.  BOYCE.     Mexico  is  our  "  sick  man." 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes ;  she  is  to  America  what  Turkey  is  to  Europe.  If 
she  be  not  healed  of  her  wounds  and  set  upright  on  her  progressive  path, 
she  will  become  not  the  "sick  man"  merely,  but  the  dead  man,  whose 
very  corpse  will  arrest  our  steps,  taint  the  air,  and  poison  our  own  politi 
cal  system.  To  save  her,  she  must  be  inoculated  with  American  energy. 
To  save  her ! — alas  !  is  she  not  already  a  wreck,  whose  disparted  ribs 
and  crashing  timbers,  tossed  on  the  wild  wave  of  anarchy,  endanger  the 
safety  of  her  neighbors  ? 

When  the  Spanish  American  provinces,  forty  years  ago,  revolted 
against  their  mother  country,  this  nation  inaugurated  a  continental  policy. 
It  bears  the  name  of  our  most  sagacious  and  calm  statesman — the  Mon 
roe  doctrine.  It  forbids  European  interference  in  the  national  affairs  of 
this  continent.  That  doctrine  has,  with  the  nations  of  this  continent,  a 
sanction  equal  to  international  law.  It  has  done  good  service.  Silent  as 
the  tides,  yet  as  potent,  it  has  swayed  millions  by  its  influences  and  efflu 
ences.  That  policy  can  be  amended  and  enlarged.  From  its  serene  qui 
etism,  silent  emphasis,  folded  arms,  frowning  face,  and  warning  gesture,  it 
should  be  aroused  to  earnest  protest  and  armed  interference.  So  far  as 
Mexico  is  concerned,  this  must  be  done  ;  if  we  do  not  do  it,  other  nations 
will.  As  I  have  before  said  on  this  floor,  if  Mexico  complete  the  suicide 
which  she  has  begun,  her  estate  will  be  left  for  administration.  Shall  it 
be  administered  by  strangers  ?  Shall  it  inure  to  the  benefit  of  those  who 
are  neither  akin  to  her  by  political  sympathy,  nor  neighbors  in  interest  or 
destiny?  This  is  the  problem  which  statesmanship  is  urged  to  solve. 

My  solution,  sir,  is  not  new  to  this  House.     I  submitted  it,  with  great 

deference,  in  a  speech  on  "  territorial  expansion"  on  the  18th  of  January, 

1859.     I  urged  that  our  interest  lay,  first,  in  Mexico's  erect  and  orderly 

independence  ;  and  secondly,  if  that  were  not  possible,  then  that  no  Power 

9 


130  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

but  our  own  should  guard  its  weakness  and  administer  its  estate.  Since 
then,  by  the  inexorable  logic  of  events,  my  position  has  been  strengthened 
and  my  conclusions  confirmed.  In  seconding  the  views  of  the  President 
last  year,  I  urged  that  we  had  abundant  cause  for  hostility  against  the 
Miramon  government,  then  and  yet  holding  the  capital.  I  was  ready  to 
vote  for  any  system  of  reprisal  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  our  claims. 
I  was  ready  to  give  the  Executive  power  to  punish  the  atrocities  upon  our 
citizens  domiciliated  in  Mexico. 

I  need  not  say  how  this  programme  has  been  carried  out  by  our  Exec 
utive.  It  is  now  history.  The  President  has  pursued  the  wisest  policy 
possible.  He  is  clear  now,  and  for  the  future,  of  all  blame  for  these  com 
plications.  A  year  hence,  and  his  policy  no  one  will  question.  In  three 
months  afterwards  he  recognized  the  Juarez  government.  This  was  the 
government  de  jure  and  de  facto.  This  recognition  was  followed  by  the 
appearance  of  Mr.  McLane  and  a  naval  force  at  Vera  Cruz.  This  was 
succeeded  by  the  advantageous  treaty  now  before  the  Senate.  If  that  treaty 
be  confirmed,  not  alone  will  our  commerce  grow  from  its  present  languish 
ing  condition  of  some  eight  millions  to  some  twenty  millions  per  annum, 
which  it  was  in  1835  ;  but  the  highways  of  the  continent  will  be  over 
Mexico.  These  highways  will  draw  to  them  a  by-trade  of  increased  inter 
course.  They  will  inaugurate  an  enterprise  in  agriculture,  commerce,  and 
mining,  which  will  make  Mexico  as  much  a  useful  dependency  upon  us 
as  ever  India  was  upon  England. 

What  remains  to  be  done  to  bring  about  a  consummation  so  splendid 
on  a  theatre  so  magnificent  ?  What  remains  to  give  us  control  from  the 
Rio  Grande  to  the  gates  of  Panama  ?  Already  the  Central  American 
imbroglio  is  ended.  Great  Britain  has  restored  the  Bay  Islands  to  Hon 
duras.  She  has,  informally  at  least,  relinquished  the  Mosquito  protec 
torate.  Honduras  and  Nicaragua  will  then  be  independent  of  foreign 
intervention.  New  Granada  opened  her  Congress  on  the  last  of  February, 
1860,  and  we  may  soon  hear  that  the  Cass-Herran  treaty  is  confirmed. 
All  that  remains  for  us  is  to  give  practical  annexation  to  Mexico,  as  we 
have  to  Canada,  by  our  reciprocal  free  trade.  Cuba  gravitates  every 
year  nearer  to  this  continent.  With  the  Gulf  ours,  from  Florida  all 
around  to  Yucatan,  the  key  must  be  ours.  A  practical  solution  by  us  of 
Mexican  politics  will  not  be  unheeded  by  the  people  of  Cuba,  and  will 
compel  a  mutuality  in  commerce  and  comity  between  them  and  our  own 
country.  Then  we  make  the  northern  part  of  this  whole  continent  ours 
by  every  tie  of  interest  in  the  present,  and  ours  in  the  fulness  of  time  by 
closer  bonds  of  political  federation  ! 

I  propose  to  show  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  us  to  interfere  in 
Mexico  ;  demanded  alike  by  national  honor,  by  national  interests,  and 
self-protection.  I  will  show  that  no  interference  can  be  effectual  which 
does  not  look  .to  the  actual  pedis  possessio  of  the  country  by  our  troops. 
Either  Mexico  must  roll  back  under  the  dark  rule  of  brigandage,  which 
creates  anarchy  for  its  own  aggrandizement,  or  she  must  become  Ameri 
canized  with  a  recognized  foreign  ruling  element  in  the  country.  It  is 
either  annihilation  or  resurrection  under  our  auspices. 

Take  a  glance  at  the  condition  of  Mexico.  If  this  glance  does  not 
suffice  to  arouse  us  from  our  apathy  about  Mexican  affairs,  we  may  as 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  131 

well  yield  our  predominance  at  once  on  this  continent,  confess  that  Eu 
rope  is  fitted  to  take  care  of  this  "  New  Atlantis,"  and  that  our  schemes 
of  commerce,  progress,  and  empire  are  a  failure  and  a  delusion  !  In  ar 
riving  at  the  condition  of  Mexico,  it  will  be  necessary  to  epitomize  her 
eventful  history.  I  propose  to  do  this  briefly  under  three  epochs. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  The  only  question 
before  us,  is  the  reference  of  the  appropriation  bill  to  one  or  the  other 
committee.  It  is  not  in  order  to  discuss  the  condition  of  Mexico  in 
general. 

Mr.  Cox.  If  the  gentleman  could  know  my  speech  frojn  the  begin 
ning  to  the  end,  he  would  see  that  I  intend  to  apply  my  remarks,  in  the 
end,  to  the  question  of  reference.  The  peace  of  our  frontier  is  essential 
to  the  treaty  and  our  other  relations  with  Mexico.  I  wish  the  matter  re 
ferred  to  that  committee  which  will  give  it  the  fullest  examination. 

Mr.  BOYCE.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  be  allowed  to  go  on  with  his 
most  interesting  and  useful  discussion. 

Mr.  MORRIS,  of  Pennsylvania.  The  condition  of  our  frontier  opens 
up  all  our  interests  in  Mexico.  I  trust  that  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
may  be  permitted  to  proceed. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  first  epoch  is  from  the  Spanish  invasion  to  the  revo 
lution  against  Spain,  in  1824.  Much  may  be  pardoned  to  Mexico,  when 
we  remember  the  heritage  of  misery  which  Spain  left  to  her.  Making 
every  allowance  for  exaggeration,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Spaniards 
found  at  the  discovery  a  remarkable  civilization.  Whether  it  belonged 
to  an  ancient  race  or  not,  it  was  there,  with  its  polity,  its  religion,  its 
comforts,  and  its  wealth.  The  highest  avarice  of  Cortes,  his  followers, 
and  viceroyal  successors,  was  stimulated  by  its  affluence.  The  same  ex 
traordinary  efforts  which  were  made  to  achieve  its  conquest,  were  em 
ployed  in  draining  the  country  of  its  resources.  In  this  all-absorbing 
avarice — an  avarice  which  had  no  limit  and  knew  no  mercy,  which  was 
checked  only  by  its  glutted  and  bloated  repletion — are  to  be  found  the  seeds 
of  that  disease  and  disaster  which  now  weaken,  distract,  and  mutilate 
Mexico.  The  motto  seems  to  have  been  :  "  Nada  est  mala  que  gana  la 
plata " — nothing  is  evil  which  gives  us  the  silver.  Under  its  sway,  the 
most  unprincipled  set  of  robbers,  cutthroats,  and  intriguers  were  warmed 
into  life.  This  heritage  of  avarice  has  been  enjoyed,  too,  by  strangers. 
The  very  ministers,  as  well  as  merchants,  from  abroad,  were  seized  by 
it.  Their  aim  has  been  to  watch  for  the  advent  of  each  successive  power, 
only  the  more  readily  to  make  profitable  transactions  with  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  day,  and  to  provide  for  another  chance  with  the  govern 
ment  of  to-morrow.  As  a  consequence,  the  people,  whose  production 
furnished  the  means  for  this  avarice,  finally  lost  their  patience.  The 
Spanish  grandees,  the  Gapuchins — less  than  one-fifth  of  the  population — 
were  the  beneficiaries  of  these  schemes.  The  Indian  and  mixed  popula 
tion  was  the  source  whence  this  barbarity,  blood,  sweat,  and  treasure 
were  extracted.  In  1810,  the  first  revolt,  under  Hidalgo,  took  place. 
The  cry  was,  "  Death  to  the  Gapuchins  !  "  A  war  of  races  began  ;  and 
out  of  it  came  the  war  of  independence.  This  raged  until  1821,  when 
Iturbide  assumed  the  imperial  robes,  only  to  impurple  them  more  deeply 
in  his  own  blood.  The  axe  which  cut  off  the  head  of  Augustin  I. — as 


132  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

he  was  called — carved  out  the  Federal  Republic,  with  Vittoria  as  its  first 
President,  in  1825. 

Under  the  second  epoch,  I  will  include  all  those  vicissitudes  of  Mexi 
can  history  until  the  formation  of  the  new  Constitution  on  the  fifth  of  Feb 
ruary,  1857,  of  Avhich  Juarez  is  now  the  constitutional  President.  Dur 
ing  these  thirty-two  years,  there  can  be  traced  in  perpetual  array  two 
parties.  They  were  the  natural  offspring  of  the  old  and  the  new  order 
of  things.  The  Central,  despotic,  or  monarchical  party,  which  has  had 
the  wealthier,  foreign,  talented,  and  non-producing  classes  in  its  midst, 
are  on  the  one  side.  On  the  other,  is  the  Federal,  Consittutional,  or  dem 
ocratic  party,  which  has  had  the  native,  poorer,  and  producing  population. 
The  Centralists  have  favored  a  strong  government  at  the  capital,  where 
most  of  them  reside,  and  where  most  of  the  wealth  and  educated  talent  are 
located.  The  Constitutional  party  disfavored  all  central  influence  as  well 
as  foreign ;  strove  to  distribute  the  central  power  among  the  States,  and 
to  clothe  with  franchises  the  local  communities.  This  party  looked  less 
to  the  aggrandizement  of  the  few,  and  more  to  the  happiness  of  the  many. 
But  it  has  ever  been  under  a  cloud.  The  power  of  station,  wealth,  and 
education  has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  numbers  ;  and  the  numbers 
have  succumbed.  The  army,  foreign  diplomacy,  and  the  revenue  were 
at  the  call  of  the  Centralists.  They  have  aroused  and  used  the  prejudices 
of  the  people  against  the  United  States.  They  have  agents  now  in  Eu 
rope,  as  I  can  show,  trying  to  dispose  of  the  sovereignty  of  Mexico. 
They  have  just  made  a  treaty  with  the  Queen  of  Spain.  The  Constitu 
tional  party  have  welcomed  our  sympathy  and  rejected  foreign  influence. 
Santa  Anna,  a  miser,  a  soldier,  and  a  scoundrel,  was  and  is  the  repre 
sentative  man  of  the  Centralists.  Juarez,  an  Indian,  a  gentleman,  and  a 
civilian,  is  to-day  the  representative  man  of  the  Constitutionalists.  I  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  these  party  lines  are  distinctly  traceable  throughout 
these  years  of  Mexican  independence.  To  an  "  outsider,"  these  parties 
are  but  the  hubbub,  the  "  bullanga,"  of  conflicting  and  quarrelling  sol 
diery.  They  are  like  certain  rivers,  which  enjoy  the  light  for  a  distance, 
and  then  disappear  under  ground,  and  again  reappear,  only  to  confound 
and  vex  the  adventurer.  But  they  are  the  same  streams.  A  close  anal 
ysis  will  educe  their  primary  elements  and  detect  their  distinguishing 
characteristics. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  call  this  contest  a  war  of  religion  and  races.  It  is 
a  contest  of  principles.  Indians  and  whites  are  upon  both  sides,  and  all 
are  Catholics.  The  Church  has  as  much  to  fear  from  the  exactions  of  its 
pretended  defenders  as  from  their  opponents.  The  United  States  only 
has  the  system  which  can  guarantee  to  the  Church  its  vested  rights,  if 
they  arc  endangered  by  either  party.  It  is  no  war  of  races.  The  races 
are  too  much  intermingled  to  war. 

Of  pure  Europeans  in  Mexico,  there  are  one-fifth 1,656,620 

Of  natives  or  indigenous  races,  four-fifteenths 2,208,824 

Of  mixed  native  and  European 4,417,644 

8,283,088 

Of  this  number,  at  least  nine-tenths  arc  of  the  Constitutional  party. 
The  history  of  this  era  is  but  the  placement  and  displacement  of  Presi- 


FOREIGN  AFTAIES.  133 

dents — the  march  and  countermarch  of  generals.  A  President  who  is 
absent  from  the  capital  is  compelled  to  fight  his  way  back  to  the  palace  ; 
when  once  in  the  palace,  he  has  no  rest  till  he  marches  forth  again  against 
his  enemies  out  of  the  city.  The  civilian  has  continually  a  sword  in  his 
hand  and  a  foot  in  the  stirrup.  A  junta  meets  in  Puebla  or  Ayutla  ;  and 
lo  !  a  new  Constitution  and  a  new  Executive  !  One  day  it  is  "  Muera  el 
General ! "  the  next,  if  he  is  not  killed,  it  is  l<  Viva  el  General ! "  These 
vicissitudes  have  continued  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century — nay, 
for  half  a  century,  from  the  first  struggle  in  1809— with  not  five  con 
secutive  years  of  repose.  The  fields  of  Mexico  have  been  fertilized  with 
the  blood,  bone,  and  muscle  of  her  children.  Intestine  feuds,  more  in 
furiate  than  foreign  invasions,  have  disturbed  her  prosperity  and  broken 
her  hopes.  During  this  period,  she  was  twice  attacked  by  Spain,  once  by 
France,  and  once  conquered  by  the  United  States.  Yet,  with  her  ma 
rauding  Indians,  her  thieving  leperos,  her  internal  feuds,  and  her  foreign 
invasions,  her  energy  has  been  wonderfully  recuperative,  and  her  resources 
seem  inexhaustibly  bountiful.  What  might  she  not  become,  under  a  lib 
eral  protection  given  to  her  industry,  her  commerce,  and  her  property  ! 

Our  third  epoch  opens  on  the  5th  of  February,  1857,  when,  at  an  ex 
traordinary  Congress,  called  for  that  purpose — and  nemine  contradicente 
— the  present  Constitution  was  adopted.  Comonfort  became  its  Execu 
tive.  His  policy,  which  was  that  of  a  trimmer  between  the  two  parties, 
led  to  his  vacating  the  post  on  the  llth  of  January,  1858.  By  the  seven 
ty-ninth  article  of  the  Constitution,  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Justice  became  the  President  of  the  Republic.  Benito  Juarez  then 
held  the  Presidency  of  the  Supreme  Bench,  and  became  de  jure  chief  ex 
ecutive  of  the  nation.  Before  Juarez  could  assume  his  functions  at  the 
capital,  Felix  Zuloaga,  under  the  "  plan  of  Tacubaya,"  proclaimed  by  a 
body  of  soldiers,  who  had  the  venality  without  the  dignity  of  the  Roman 
praetorians,  usurped  the  office  of  President.  Force  drove  Juarez  from 
State  to  State,  until  he  found  himself  compelled  to  fly  for  his  life  around 
the  isthmus  of  Panama  to  Vera  Cruz,  where  he  now  administers  his  office 
with  a  cabinet  of  unsurpassed  intelligence  and  patriotism.  He  demand 
ed  the  allegiance  of  the  various  States,  and  he  received  it  from  all,  except 
a  few  in  the  valley  and  neighborhood  of  Mexico.  I  shall  show  that  he 
still  retains  that  allegiance,  and  that,  notwithstanding  all  the  changes  of 
the  contest  since  the  summer  of  1858,  he  is  President  in  fact  as  well  as 
in  form.  In  November,  1858,  Zuloaga  was  deposed  by  the  same  power 
which  had  set  him  up — a  usurpation  aided  by  mercenary  troops,  mer 
chants,  and  ministers.  One  of  the  generals,  Miguel  Miramon,  young,  im 
petuous,  successful,  and  more  pliant  to  the  purposes  of  the  masters  of  the 
capital,  supersedes  Robles,  who  had  for  two  days  usurped  the  usurping 
Zuloaga' s  power.  For  the  past  year  these  parties  have  not  changed  their 
relative  strength  a  great  deal,  either  with  respect  to  the  various  States  or 
their  military  occupation.  We  have  bulletin  after  bulletin  announcing 
the  Liberals  defeated  here,  the  Centralists  there.  Miramon  defeats  De- 
gollado  at  Querctaro,  but  he  loses,  as  he  leaves  this  and  that  city  behind 
him,  in  his  forward  march.  When  Miramon  leaves  Mexico  to  threaten 
Vera  Cruz,  half  a  dozen  generals  move  toward  Mexico  to  threaten  it.  I 
said,  a  year  ago,  that  Juarez  had  a  majority  of  the  States  and  nine-tenths 


134: 


EIGHT   TEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 


of  the  people.  He  had  more,  and  he  has  retained  all  that  he  had.  Let 
me  try  and  give  a  clear  picture  of  this  Mexican  "  situation  "  by  figures 
and  facts,  corrected  by  close  observation.  From  it,  will  be  seen  that  Mi- 
ramon  is  confined  mainly  to  three  central  States — Queretaro,  Pucbla,  and 
Mexico — with  a  temporary  and  violent  occupation  of  a  few  places  out 
side.  All  the  coast  and  frontier,  with  the  custom-houses  and  ports,  are 
held  by  Juarez.  From  these  are  the  revenues.  There  are  eight  of  these 
custom-houses  on  the  Gulf,  five  on  the  Pacific,  and  eight  on  the  frontier. 
No  merchandise,  silver,  or  bullion  can  enter  or  depart  from  the  country, 
unless  by  smuggling,  or  by  consent  of  the  Juarez  Government.  Mira- 
mon  is  hemmed  into  a  small  area,  and  is  supported,  willingly,  but  by  a 
very  inconsiderable  population.  Let  me  present  the  condition  of  things, 
as  they  now  are,  in  a  tabular  form  : 


States. 

Population. 

Square  Leagues. 

States. 

Population. 

Square  Leagues. 

Miramon. 

Juarez. 

Miramon 

Juarez. 

Miramon. 

[Juarez, 

Miramon. 

Juarez. 

Aguascalientes. 
Coahuila  
Chiapas 

90,000 
70,000 
180.000 
160,000 
140,600 

270000 

i,545 

8S1 
7,947 
2,598 
11,611 
6,744 

4,451 

3,453 
4,216 

3,288 

3,9i4 

Sinaloa  
Sonora  

160,000 
140,000 
70,000 
100,000 
380,000 

1 

4,690 
139 
171,940 
4,219 
3,501 
6,801 
8,862 
•276 
607 
8,437 
1,742 
364 
435 

Tabasco  
Tamaulinas  
Vera  Cruz  

Chihuahua..... 
Durango  
Guanajuato  .  .  . 

800,000 

Yucatan  
Zacatecas 

.... 

450,000 
320,000 
12,000 
70,000 
12,000 
50,000 
90,000 
100,000 

; 

Jalisco 

820,000 
1,520,000 

600,000 
150,000 
550,000 

400,000 

8,324 
3,271 

i,733 
869 

L'r  California.. 
Coliina  

Mexico  

Isle  of  Carmen. 
Sierra  Gorda... 
Tehuantepec.  .  . 
Tiaxcala  

'.'.'.'. 

Kuevo  Leon  .  .  . 
Oajaca 

Puebla  
Queretaro  
SanLuisPotosi 

680,000 
170,000 

3,990,000 

4,564,000 

15,742 

99,200 

It  will  be  seen  that  I  have  given  Miramon  five  States  of  small  area, 
but  of  comparatively  dense  population.  I  have  given  Miramon  Guana 
juato  and  Jalisco,  because  he  holds  their  capitals,  now  threatened  by  his 
enemies.  I  have  given  Miramon  Puebla  and  Queretaro,  although  Juarez 
holds  some  of  the  towns  in  each.  It  would  be  fair  (especially  as  even  one 
town  of  Mexico,  Toluca,  is  held  by  Juarez,  and  as  some  towns  in  Vera  Cruz 
are  held  by  Miramon,  and  as  he  is  beleaguering  its  capital  by  his  forces) 
to  divide  these  first  four  States  between  the  parties.  This  would  leave  in 
the  hands  of  Juarez,  States  having  5,235,000  population,  and  104,435 
square  leagues ;  against  Miramon,  2,705,000  population,  and  10,507 
square  leagues  ;  leaving  2,530,000  population  and  93,928  square  leagues 
in  favor  of  Juarez,  on  a  fair  computation.  But  this  geographical  and 
popular  element  in  his  favor  is  utterly  useless  for  government  in  a  country 
where  rapine  is  the  rule  and  order  the  exception,  unless  Juarez  is  aided 
by  extraneous  force  and  means.  I  am  assured  of  the  fact  that  he  is  able 
to  hold  his  own,  including  Vera  Cruz  ;  while  Miramon,  since  he  has  lefl 
the  capital,  holds  it,  if  at  all  now,  by  a  precarious  tenure. 

We  are  apt  to  draw  our  analogies  from  France,  and  argue  that  as 
Paris  is  held,  so  is  France ;  that  the  revolution  of  the  capital  is  that  of 
the  empire.  But  the  analogy  does  not  hold.  France  is  a  centralized 
Power  ;  Mexico  is  a  federative  Government.  Our  own  nation  will  serve 
as  a  better  illustration.  It  would  hardly  follow  that  a  usurper  holding 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  135 

Washington  City  and  parts  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  and  Delaware,  with 
no  seaports,  no  custom-houses,  no  revenues,  nothing  but  the  regular  sol 
diers  of  the  District,  could  be  called  the  Government  de  facto,  while  all 
the  rest  of  the  country  preserved  the  form,  spirit,  and  functions  of  the 
Federal  Government  at  Cincinnati  or  New  Orleans.  Nor  would  the 
recognition  of  such  a  Government,  by  France  or  England,  make  it,  de 
facto,  the  Government.  In  Mexico,  France  and  England  have  hitherto 
held  the  Central  junta  to  be  the  Government  de  facto.  England,  how 
ever,  is  about  to  withdraw  such  recognition,  inasmuch  as  she  has  found 
it  utterly  irresponsible,  cruel,  rapacious,  tyrannical,  and  barbarous  to 
ward  her  own  citizens,  even  as  it  had  been  toward  American  citizens. 
During  this  epoch,  Mexico  has  had  thirty-five  Governments,  and  seventy- 
two  Executives.  Only  two  of  her  Executives  have  ever  served  a  full 
term — Vittoria,  her  first  President,  and  Herrera,  at  the  close  of  our  war 
with  Mexico.  But  these  happy  exceptions  can  hardly  be  called  such, 
when  wre  remember  their  perils  and  troubles,  their  antagonists  with  pro- 
nunciamientos,  and  their  wars  to  put  down  insurgents. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  "  If  the  Juarez  Government  is  so  strong  in  the 
area  of  territory,  population,  sea-coast,  and  frontier,  why  does  it  not 
vindicate  its  superiority  by  taking  the  capital  and  stopping  these  depre 
dations  on  foreign  and  domestic  interests,  lives,  and  liberty?"  This 
question  deserves  a  fair  answer.  One  answer  is,  that  the  minority  are 
richer  than  the  majority.  It  can  buy  the  praetorians.  The  spurious 
Government  is  enabled  to  raise  money,  because  it  has  intrigued  with  the 
French  Minister,  Gabriac,  and  with  the  former  English  Minister, 
Otway,  who  were  the  tools  of  speculators  and  bankers.  Consequently 
avarice  and  greed  have  beaten  patriotism  and  honesty.  The  national 
securities  of  Juarez  go  unguaranteed  into  the  market,  and  bring  only 
a  nominal  per  cent. ;  while  the  Central  securities,  guaranteed  by  foreign 
conventions,  enable  that  faction  to  borrow  at  a  fair  per  cent.  Thus 
have  the  Centralists  kept  up  their  army,  corrupted  leaders  and  gen 
erals,  and  swept  over  the  land,  leaving  behind  them  nothing  but  inse 
curity,  anarchy,  and  devastation.  What  towns  or  cities  they  hold  is  by 
force  and  fear,  not  fealty  and  respect.  With  all  these  advantages  to  the 
central  government,  the  nation  is  not  with  them.  The  Constitutional  party 
have  been  defeated  at  several  important  points,  it  is  true  ;  in  April  last, 
before  the  city  of  Mexico,  and  in  November  last,  near  Queretaro.  But 
they  now  hold  all  of  the  northern  half  of  Mexico,  and  more  than  half  of 
the  southern  portion.  They  have  made  themselves  masters  of  the  entire 
Pacific  coast,  including  San  Bias,  which  Miramon  held  for  a  while.  They 
have  successfully  resisted  Miramon's  attack  on  Vera  Cruz  ;  and  will  resist 
successfully  his  present  attack,  if  they  do  not  also  wrest  the  capital  from 
him,  while  he  is  attempting  to  take  Vera  Cruz.  This  rightful  Government 
will  maintain  itself  in  the  field,  as  it  can  in  the  forum  of  the  lex  gentium, 
against  the  incivism  and  outrages  of  tits  opponents.  Which  Government  is 
the  one  for  our  recognition  and  support?  That  is  easily  determined 
from  what  I  have  said.  Mr.  McLane,  in  April  last,  thus  determined. 
He  has  given  it  a  practical  solution  by  the  treaty  now  before  the 
Senate.  The  present  administration  displays  a  wise,  cautious,  and  just 
statesmanship,  in  urging  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  It  has  been 


136  EIGHT  TEARS   IN  CONGRESS. 

made  with  great  care  and  anxiety.  The  President  is  reported  to 
have  said  that  the  salvation  of  Mexico  depends  upon  its  ratification.  I 
believe  it,  with  all  the  earnestness  of  studious  conviction.  That  treaty 
concedes  to  us  a  safe  transit  and  right  of  way  across  Mexico  on  three 
lines  ;  one  across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  and  the  other  two  from  our 
boundary  to  Guaymas  and  Mazatlan.  It  authorizes  us  to  lend  the  naval 
and  military  forces  of  this  Government  to  the  constitutional  authorities,  at 
their  expense,  in  order  to  execute  the  treaty.  Thus  we  are,  in  the  lan 
guage  of  international  law,  "  souverains  par  indivis  "  with  the  Juarez 
Government,  and  with  power  to  execute  the  right.  This  power,  if  exe 
cuted,  will  end  these  convulsions  of  Mexico.  By  a  territorial  abnegation, 
Mexico  has  given  us  a  foothold  upon  her  soil  which  cannot  be  used  but 
for  her  peace,  development,  and  prosperity. 

If  this  House  will  but  observe  the  articles  placed  upon  the  free  list  by 
the  treaty,  they  will  perceive  the  ample  scope  of  intercourse  which  it 
offers  to  every  part  of  our  country.  The  Ohio  farmer  will  feel  it  in  the 
enhanced  "price  of  his  provisions,  as  well  as  the  planter  of  cotton  on  the 
Gulf,  whose  great  staple  will  find  a  larger  market.  The  iron  interest  of 
the  Middle  States,  and  the  manufacturing  interest  of  New  England,  are 
alike  the  recipients  of  its  results.  We  may  regain  the  trade  with  Mexico 
which  we  had  from  1830  to  1840,  when  $46,000,000  were  exported 
thither,  against  only  $18,000,000  from  1840  to  1850  !  We  will  do  more. 
Since  then,  we  have  carved  out  an  empire  on  the  Pacific ;  and  the  far 
Orient  of  China  and  Japan  has  given  us  treaties  of  interchange.  Our 
commerce  from  Mexico,  being  unburdened  with  transit  duties,  will  go 
north  to  our  possessions  on  the  Pacific,  south  along  the  South  American 
coast,  and  westward  to  this  Orient — the  golden  Cathay  of  Columbus — 
where  our  enterprise  can  play  upon  every  key  of  traffic  and  touch  upon 
every  spring  of  intercourse.  Thus  will  be  returned  to  Mexico,  through 
our  agency,  that  affluent  commerce  which,  in  her  early  colonial  day,  made 
Acapulco  the  Venice  of  the  New  World,  and  the  stately  galleons  of  Cadiz  , 
an  armada  which  was  the  pride  of  an  empire  and  the  envy  of  the  world  ! 
That  treaty  to  which  I  refer  will  be  the  respite,  or  rather  the  life  warrant 
to  Mexico.  I  trust  it  may  be  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  as  it  is  by  the 
good  sense  of  the  country.  I  am  ready,  as  one  of  the  Representatives  of 
the  people,  to  vote  the  $4,000,000  required  to  give  us  the  foothold  at  the 
railroad  oceanic  termini.  I  look  upon  that  foothold  as  not  only  preven 
tive  of  all  European  interference,  but,  if  you  please,  as  the  thin  end  of  an 
entering  wedge  into  Mexico.  It  is  the  herald  to  a  circuit  of  empire  all 
around  the  Gulf  by  a  steam  marine  ;  and  to  a  coronation  of  new  States  to 
this  Federation,  whose  wealth  and  brilliancy  will  far  outshine  the  gold  of 
California  and  the  silver  leads  of  Washoe  ! 

It  was  urged  as  an  objection  against  the  acquisition  of  Texas  that  the 
commercial  emporium  of  the  New  World  would  be  transferred  from  New 
York  to  New  Orleans.  How  ill-founded  were  these  fears  !  The  freedom 
and  expansion  of  our  commerce  and  the  acquisition  of  territory,  have 
only  magnified  and  glorified  New  York  ;  and-a  similar  enlargement  would 
have  the  same  result  to-day.  New  York  is  the  nation's  commercial  cen 
tre  and  heart ;  and  any  thing  that  affects  her,  affects  the  minutest  nerve  at 
the  extremity  of  the  Republic.  If  adversity  visit  the  South  or  North, 


FOREIGN  AFFAIRS.  137 

East  or  West,  New  York  feels  it.  The  present  treaty  would  add  another 
element  to  its  wealth,  power,  and  greatness. 

Two  millions  of  the  four  are  to  be  in  trust  for  the  satisfaction  of  the 
claims  of  our  citizens  against  Mexico.  These  claims  can  never  be  ad 
justed,  much  less  paid,  under  either  of  the  Mexican  Governments,  unless 
Mexico  parts  with  some  valuable  interests,  by  which  she  can  raise  what 
ought  to  be  paid  to  our  citizens. 

It  is  a  shame  upon  the  American  name  among  the  Spanish  repub 
lics,  that  our  citizens  are  utterly  remediless  for  all  their  wrongs,  suffered 
at  the  hands  of  these  weak  and  irresponsible  powers.  Especially  in  Mex 
ico  have  we  causes  of  complaint  for  outrages  the  most  atrocious  and 
butcheries  the  most  bloody  and  treacherous.  In  drawing  the  picture  of 
this  mutilated  Republic  before  an  American  Congress,  the  part  reserved 
for  the  American  citizen  in  Mexico  requires  the  largest  place  and  the 
darkest  shadows.  These  outrages  are  partly  owing  to  the  false  and  pre 
judicial  statements  everywhere  circulated  against  our  name,  since  the 
Mexican  war,  by  the  Monarchical  party.  Since  the  McLane  treaty,  these 
stories  have  received  the  rarest  touches  of  Mexican  braggadocio.  As  a 
consequence,  the  wildest  denunciations  of  American  citizens  are  indulged 
in  ;  so  that  no  respect  is  shown,  or  protection  given  by  any  class,  even  to 
the  official  representatives  of  our  country,  where  the  Miramon  Govern 
ment  predominates.  Not  even  where  the  Juarez  Government  holds 
sway  is  there  that  safety  and  protection  to  our  interests  demanded  by  in 
ternational  law.  One  year  ago  1  was  compelled  by  the  facts  to  picture 
Mexico  as  debilitated,  helpless,  bleeding,  dying — as  a  land  of  rapacity, 
crime,  chaos,  craft,  license,  and  brutality ;  indolence  only  active  to  wrong 
and  industry  quickened  only  to  vice  ;  laws  made  for  their  infraction,  and 
order  established  to  be  contemned.  Mountain  then  cried  unto  valley  for 
relief,  and  from  hacienda  to  city  went  up  the  wail  of  despair.  This  was 
unhappy  Mexico,  in  whose  fate  no  nation  can  ever  have  the  interest  we 
have,  till  such  nation  conquer  us.  I  was  compelled  then  to  ask  the 
question,  Who  shall  intervene  f  And  now,  with  more  earnest  emphasis, 
I  ask  again  :  If  we  do  not,  who  will  intervene  ? 

Since  then,  this  picture  has  received  fresh  tints  of  gloom  and  more 
bloody  hues  of  horror.  It  should  be  painted  by  a  Rembrandt  in  chiaro 
scuro.  Let  me  hold  it  to  the  light,  if  it  is  not  too  appalling !  Vil 
lages  deserted ;  citizens  in  terror  and  dismay ;  farms  in  ruin ;  the 
arriero  no  longer  drives  his  loaded  mule ;  the  vaquero  finds  no  field  safe 
enough  for  his  lazy  life,  amid  his  herds  and  flocks ;  families  in  mourn 
ing,  orphanage,  and  misery ;  gibbets  erected  at  each  cross-road ;  death- 
crosses  lining  the  highways  ;  a  torrent  of  blood  flowing  from  cowardly 
assassination ;  prisons  choked  with  their  rotting  victims ;  the  leperos 
prowling  for  human  prey  ;  guerrillas  scouring  the  country  ;  and  the  ruins 
thereof  only  hidden  by  the  rank  weeds  and  luxuriant  parasites  which  the 
rich  land  has  produced  as  a  garment  to  cover  the  shame,  confusion,  neg 
lect,  spoliation,  and  decay.  Another  year,  and  the  skeleton  Famine  will 
stalk  through  this  land.  Since  last  year,  the  semblance  of  respect  to 
American  and  foreign  residents  has  been  thrown  off.  The  thin  guise  and 
specious  pretext  are  no  longer  exhibited,  as  the  apology  for  crime,  rapa 
city,  and  wrong.  Do  you  want  instances  ?  Read  the  cruel  murder  of 


138  EIGHT   YEAES    IN   CONGRESS. 

Chase,  to  which  the  President  refers.  What  enormity  can  equal  it  in 
diabolical  craft  and  cruelty?  Go  to  Tacubaya,  with  that  blood-spotted 
Marquez — the  Nena  Sahib  of  Mexico — as  its  butcher  !  From  that  scene 
of  cowardice  and  carnage,  if  from  no  other,  rises  the  cry  of  vengeance 
against  the  bloodhounds  who  tore  from  the  sick  couch  of  the  hospital  the 
humane  American  and  English  physicians,  and,  amid  horrible  execra 
tions,  which  made  hell  laugh,  took  the  lives  which  were  dedicated  to  the 
sublime  and  Christ-like  duties  of  healing  and  kindliness.  A  brilliant 
young  surgeon  from  my  own  district — a  son  of  my  Democratic  prede 
cessor,  Dr.  Olds — was  one  of  the  victims  of  that  Mexican  butchery,  from 
which  no  employment,  however  benignant,  could  exempt  the  American 
citizen.  "  Were  I  a  Mexican,  as  I  am  an  American,"  I  would,  as  the 
first  act  of  returning  justice  and  order,  make  inquisition  for  blood  at  the 
hands  of  these  butchers  of  Tacubaya.  Degollado,  by  his  orders  of  the 
17th  of  April,  recited  these  cold-blooded  and  merciless  assassinations, 
and  declared  that  all  officers  of  the  enemy,  taken  in  arms,  should  be  exe 
cuted  immediately.  This  is  a  bloody  index  to  the  character  of  the  war. 
The  superintendent  of  that  massacre,  Daza  y  Arguelles,  happily  for  even 
Mexican  humanity,  was  taken  prisoner  by  Carvajal,  in  December  last, 
was  shot,  and  his  disfigured  body  hung  up  for  the  hootings  of  even  a 
Mexican  rabble. 

Lately,  in  the  palace  of  Miramon,  Marquez,  while  there  as  a  guest, 
had  the  brutality  to  strike  down  the  old  French  lady,  Madame  Gourges, 
for  enacting  the  part  of  Florence  Nightingale  at  this  massacre.  This 
same  Marquez  has  since  been  imprisoned,  by  the  jealousy  of  Miramon, 
along  with  hundreds  of  others,  but  better  men,  who  are  now  dying  in  the 
prisons  of  Mexico,  or  working  in  its  presidio  with  ball  and  chain.  It  is 
to  be  hoped  that  Marquez  will  meet  with  his  reward. 

Go  to  Zacatecas,  where  the  central  chief,  Gen.  Woll,  has  been  imi 
tating  Coronada  and  Rojos  at  Tepic,  by  filching  all  the  money  he  could 
from  foreign  merchants,  and  inflicting  all  the  horrors  he  could  upon  the 
English  and  American  victims  !  After  imposing  all  sorts  of  new  taxes 
and  making  the  merchants,  repay  to  him  all  the  duties  and  taxes  of  the 
preceding  thirteen  months,  he  resorted  to  imprisonment  and  death  as  the 
means  of  enforcing  his  detestable  avarice.  He  even  threatened  the  British 
consul,  for  not  complying  with  his  demands.  This  same  General  Woll 
sends  the  conducta  to  the  Pacific  coast  from  Zacatecas.  It  has  in  its  care 
some  four  million  dollars,  the  hard  earnings  of  English  and  American  resi 
dents.  It  pays  the  duty  on  its  departure  ;  it  reaches  Guadalajara  ;  there 
Marquez  robs  it  of  $600,000,  and  justifies  this  grand  larceny  by  the  ne 
cessity  of  his  situation  and  his  services  to  the  cause  of  good  government 
Meanwhile  the  other  brigand,  Miramon,  decrees  another  forced  loan — one 
per  cent,  more  upon  capitals,  " por  una  sola  vez" — only  for  this  once,  to 
lull  the  foreigner  and  tax-payer  into  the  belief,  that  this  is  the  last  one  of  six 
compulsory  loans  since  the  third  epoch  began  !  Englishmen,  Americans, 
and  other  foreigners  are  forced  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  very  system  of 
extortion  by  which  they  are  crucified  between  these  thieves  of  Mexico. 
Take  the  best  view  of  this  anomalous  condition  of  the  two  governments, 
which  even  confounded  Lord  John  Russell.  Juarez  collects  the  customs 
duties  at  Vera  Cruz,  which  Miramon  pledges  to  foreign  nations.  The  ex- 


FOREIGN    AFFAIRS.  139 

port  duty  on  the  staple  product,  silver,  is  collected  by  Miraraon  in  the  in 
terior,  and  re-collected  by  Juarez  on  the  coast.  Neither  government  has 
the  means  to  support  itself  without  either  spoliation  or  extraordinary  ex 
actions,  or  by  the  barter  of  valuable  rights  and  interests. 

Would  that  I  could  catalogue  the  crimes  of  this  cursed  cabal  at  the 
capital !  But  where  begin  ?  Where  end  ?  Shall  I  begin  with  the  mur 
der  of  poor  Crabbe  and  his  companions?  Or  of  Ormond  Chase,  by 
Marquez  ?  Or  of  the  American  officer  taken  prisoner  with  Alvarez,  at 
Queretaro  ?  Or  the  imprisonment  and  assassination  of  political  offenders, 
by  Corona,  at  Zacatecas,  Cordova,  Jalapa,  and  Orizaba?  How  can  I  re 
hearse  the  robberies  so  common  all  over  this  doomed  land  ?  The  violation 
of  flags  of  truce  ;  the  destruction  of  haciendas  ;  the  Indians  flying  before 
these  rapacious  soldiers  like  a  herd  of  mustangs  ?  Or  of  Bombastes  Cor- 
tinas,  who  derisively  and  defiantly  steals  the  United  States  mails,  and 
hangs  them,  with  the  riddled  bodies  of  Americans,  on  the  trees  near  his 
fort  above  Brownsville  ;  plays  both  judge  and  jury  on  American  citizens, 
within  eight  miles  of  Fort  Brown,  where  he  lately  made  his  ranch  the 
nest  of  his  robbers  and  their  plunder  ? 

These  are  but  isolated  acts,  involving,  it  is  true,  loss  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property,  by  Americans.  But  there  are  more  important  transactions, 
showing  an  overruling  necessity  for  our  prompt  interference.  Let  me 
give  you  one.  Juarez  holds  Yera  Cruz,  and  receives  the  revenues.  His 
government  is  not  recognized  by  France ;  but  the  French  minister,  Ga- 
briac,  by  threatening  Vera  Cruz  with  French  guns,  compelled  Juarez  to 
pay  off  the  French  debt  of  $1,000,000.  Recently  we  hear  that  an  addition 
of  $460,000  of  this  old  paid-off  French-convention  debt  is  to  be  enforced 
against  the  revenues  of  the  Vera  Cruz  government.  This  addition  is  the 
result  of  Gabriac's  reclamation  for  French  moneys,  stolen  from  the  con- 
ducta  by  this  same  robber  government  at  the  capital,  which  Gabriac 
smiles  upon.  Gabriac  and  his  bankers  are  to  get  their  per  cent.,  if  he  can 
only  use  the  French  fleet  at  Vera  Cruz,  while  Miramon  beleaguers  it  by 
land.  If  by  French  aid  Miramon  takes  Vera  Cruz,  what  then  becomes 
of  our  American  interests  and  citizens  there  ?  Is  it  Tacubaya  over  again  ? 
Forced  loans,  pillage,  rapine,  and  murder? 

Already  since  Miramon  began  his  march  toward  Vera  Cruz,  before 
he  had  reached  the  tierras  calientcs,  the  Constitutional  bands  were  prowling 
through  the  central  States,  making  reprisals  upon  the  property  of  wealthy 
Spaniards  and  upon  the  conducta  under  the  protection  of  Miramon's  gov 
ernment.  Already  the  same  scenes  of  a  year  ago,  when  Miramon  threat 
ened  Vera  Cruz,  are  again  transpiring.  Our  Rio  Grande  frontier  is  deso 
lated  with  fire  and  sword  from  Tamaulipas  to  Chihuahua.  Texas,  through 
Governor  Houston,  is  asking  the  President  for  Federal  aid  to  protect  our 
citizens.  He  is  eager  to  give  peace  to  the  frontier,  and,  by  a  practical 
protectorate,  some  repose  and  security  to  northern  Mexico.  Only  last 
month,  Chihuahua  was  overrun  by  one  of  Miramon's  generals,  Cosen,  with 
a  band  of  pardoned  felons.  The  grossest  outrages  on  women  and  men 
were  perpetrated.  The  Americans  were  driven  out,  and  were  compelled 
to  leave  a  million  dollars'  worth  of  property  at  the  mercy  of  the  robbers. 
They  sent  in  vain  to  Fort  Smith  for  our  troops.  Their  authorities  joined 
in  the  request  for  our  intervention,  but  in  vain.  Cosen,  with  a  thousand 


140  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

cutthroats,  is  marching  toward  its  capital.  You  can  picture  the  pillage 
which  will  result !  These  are  facts  just  brought  to  us  by  Mr.  McManus, 
of  my  own  State,  who  was  compelled  to  leave  his  home  and  interests  in 
Mexico.  And  now,  if  Vera  Cruz  too  is  to  be  endangered,  who  is  there 
that  will  not  hail  the  star-spangled  banner  flying  from  the  battlements  of 
San  Juan  de  Ulloa,  as  a  triumphant  emblem  of  the  victory  of  commerce 
and  civilization  over  craft  and  barbarism? 

Recently  I  have  seen  that  the  Miramon  Government,  in  their  stress, 
have  put  into  the  market  a  new  batch  of  bonds.  Mexico  is  to  be  saddled 
by  this  Government  with  $15,000,000  more  of  debt,  which,  added  to  the 
$80,000,000  created  in  July  last  by  Miramon's  scheme,  will  make  $95,- 
000,000  of  paper  debt  foisted  on  beggared  Mexico  in  five  months.  Be 
sides  this,  there  are  millions  of  contracts  and  reclamations  unsecured, 
arising  out  of  spoliations  of  foreigners.  To  these  is  to  be  added  the  debt 
of  Mexico,  foreign  and  domestic,  ascertained  in  April,  1857,  to  be  $96,- 
801,275,  of  which  $63,382,105  is  secured  by  a  certain  percentage  on  the 
revenues  of  Mexico,  to  the  English  and  other  bondholders.  Then  add 
the  millions  on  millions  of  ruin  heaped  on  this  country  by  these  ambitious 
and  rapacious  chiefs,  not  alone  for  arms  and  equipments,  but  in  the  losses 
to  labor  and  in  the  idleness  consequent  upon  insecurity  and  violence.  Put 
these  all  together,  and  see  the  rent  land  struggling  and  writhing  and  wring 
ing  its  hands  in  wailing  and  woe,  and  you  have  the  poorest  of  national 
Samaritans,  whom  to  go  over  and  relieve  is  the  highest  duty  of  a  Chris 
tian  nation. 

If  our  Government  fail  in  its  duty  now,  one  tiling  will  happen,  and  that 
is,  the  sudden  apparition  of  Houston,  with  ten  thousand  Texans,  in  north 
ern  Mexico.  Such  movements  are  as  irrepressible  as  fate.  They  may 
even  be  less  responsible  and  more  reckless  than  Houston's  project.  I 
know  that  such  movements  are  now  in  process  of  organization.  They 
may  have  a  peaceful  appearance.  They  are  led  by  the  "  Knights  of  the 
Golden  Circle,"  whose  mystic  "  K.  G.  C."  has  the  magic  of  King  Ar 
thur's  horn,  which  could  not  only  call  his  thousand  liegemen  at  the  blast, 
but  before  whose  blast  the  enemy  fell  down.  Proposals  have  been  made 
to  Juarez  by  these  adventurous  'spirits,  and  among  the  rest  by  General 
Reneau  &  Co.,  to  place  him  in  the  capital  and  loan  him  $500,000,  in  con 
sideration  of  the  public  lands  to  be  granted  in  the  States  of  Tamaulipas, 
New  Leon,  Zacatecas,  Coahuila,  Durango,  Chihuahua,  Sinaloa,  Michoacan, 
Guerrero,  and  Oajaca.  This  tender  includes  a  further  consideration  in 
the  form  of  surveying  and  platting  for  certain  other  public  lands.  The 
gentlemen  in  the  country  connected  with  these  movements  are  men  of 
military  tact  and  approved  courage.  They  profess  to  obey  our  neutrality 
laws  ;  they  will  not  infract  them  ;  but  if  they  go  into  Mexico  they  will  go 
as  emigrants,  on  invitation,  and  carry  the  appliances  of  art,  manufacture, 
and  agriculture.  [Laughter.]  Of  course,  they  cannot  go  unarmed  to 
such  a  country  !  They  may  reverse  the  millennium,  and  beat  their  plough 
shares  into  revolvers  and  their  pruning-hooks  into  bowie  knives.  [Laugh 
ter.]  Unless  we  give  to  Juarez  that  aid  which  the  treaty  provides,  he 
cannot  be  blamed  if  he  accept  the  offer  of  three  thousand  emigrants  for 
each  of  the  ten  States,  in  consideration  of  the  public  lands  of  those  States. 
It  will  be  the  ultima  ratio  with  his  Government,  He  will  be  driven,  by 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  141 

our  non-action,  into  the  arms  of  the  unregulated  enterprise  of  this  country. 
Can  we  lie  supine  while  these  transactions  are  transpiring?  Can  we  see 
these  martial  elements,  which  are  never  wanting  where  adventure  leads 
the  way,  combining  for  this  purpose,  without  some  action?  Better  far,  if 
they  move  under  the  stipulations  of  the  pending  treaty.  But  if  this  be  re 
jected,  better  that  the  Government  should  order  the  regular  army  to  this 
post  of  delicate  duty,  than  that  men  should  go  out,  even  under  invitation, 
in  irregular  and  adventurous  bands,  without  responsibility.  But  if  we  fail 
to  do  our  duty,  we  cannot  reproach  either  Juarez  or  our  own  citizens. 
He  will  act  on  the  old  Spanish  maxim  applied  to  the  native  Mexican 
laborers  :  "  Mai  con  ellos  ;  pcjor  sin  ellos  " — bad  with,  worse  without 
them. 

Can  we  see  external  disaster  and  internal  oppression  fall  upon  this  ill- 
starred  sister  Republic,  and  have  we  no  protest  to  make,  no  protection  to 
give?  France  can  throw  her  marine  into  the  gulf  of  Venice,  land  her 
troops  at  Genoa,  dash  with  her  armies  down  the  sides  of  Mont  Cenis  to  aid 
Sardinia  and  rescue  Lombardy.  Half  a  million  men  are  ready  to  cross 
bayonets  at  Solferino,  in  this  cause  of  Italy  ;  but  our  nation — equally  mar 
tial  if  organized,  equally  sympathetic  with  the  right,  and  having  more 
interest  in  Mexico  by  far  than  France  can  ever  have  in  Italy — must  lie 
upon  its  back,  and  wait  and  wait  for  Providence  to  press  between  its  lips 
the  fruits  of  our  advancing  civilization.  When  we  fail  to  move,  that  mo 
ment  our  destiny  is  closed.  When  we  fail  to  meet  the  demands  of  our 
continental  situation,  and  seize  every  rising  opportunity  of  expansion,  that 
moment  of  halt  is  the  moment  of  retrogression  ;  retrogression  is  decay  ; 
and  decay  is  death.  Show  me  the  code  in  the  law  of  nations  which  would 
estop  such  an  outgoing  of  national  sympathy  and  succor.  Has  the  com 
mon  conscience  ceased  to  be  a  source  of  international  law  ?  Are  the  cus 
toms  of  civilized  nations  no  criterion  for  such  enlightened  action  ?  Consult 
your  publicists  !  They  will  tell  you  that  Mexico,  if  a  nation,  is  indepen 
dent  and  equal  to  any  other  nation,  and  the  judge  of  her  own  actions. 
Very  true.  If  she  make  an  ill  use  of  her  position,  she  may  be  guilty  of  a 
breach  of  duty,  but  other  nations  cannot  dictate,  and  must  acquiesce  in 
her  conduct.  True,  again.  Vattel  rightly  condemns  Spain  for  executing 
a  Peruvian  Inca  under  Spanish  laws,  because  he  had  oppressed  and  killed 
his  own  subjects.  But  at  the  threshold  of  this  discussion  the  inquirer 
might  well  ask,  u  Is  Mexico  a  nation  now,  in  the  meaning  of  international 
law?"  Is  Mexico  "  a  body-politic,  or  a  society  of  men,  united  together 
for  the  purpose  of  promoting  their  mutual  safety  and  advantage  by  their 
combined  strength  ?  "  If  that  constitute  a  State,  her  condition  is  a  carica 
ture  on  nationality.  Has  she  the  capacity  to  preserve  herself  from  insult 
and  oppression,  either  internal  or  external?  If  not,  how  can  she  perform 
her  obligations  to  foreign  residents  and  nations  ?  Will  the  law  of  nations, 
founded  on  the  enlightened  sense  of  mankind,  permit  such  a  government, 
and  a  fortiori  two  governments  contending  for  supremacy,  to  outrage 
that  justice  which  is  the  basis  of  society  and  the  bond  of  all. intercourse? 
Vattel,  in  his  fifth  chapter,  section  seventy,  establishes  the  relation  of  such 
a  State  with  foreign  nations.  Its  appositeness  to  Mexico  is  plain  and  em 
phatic.  He  says : 


142  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGKESS. 

"  If  there  were  a  people  who  despised  and  violated  the  rights  of  others  whenever  they 
found  an  opportunity,  the  interest  of  human  society  would  authorize  all  the  other  nations 
to  form  a  confederacy  in  order  to  humble  and  chastise  the  delinquents.  We  do  not  here 
forget  the  maxims  established  in  our  preliminaries,  that  it  does  not  belong  to  nations  to 
usurp  the  power  of  being  judges  of  each  other.  In  particular  cases,  where  there  is  room 
for  the  smallest  doubt,  it  ought  to  be  supposed  that  each  of  the  parties  may  have  some 
right,  and  the  injustice  of  the  party  that  has  committed  the  injury  may  proceed  from 
error,  and  not  from  a  general  contempt  of  justice.  But  when,  by  her  constant  maxims, 
and  by  the  whole  tenor  of  her  conduct,  a  nation  evidently  proves  herself  to  be  actuated 
by  a  mischievous  disposition,  if  she  regards  no  right  as  sacred,  the  safety  of  the  human 
race  requires  that  she  should  be  repressed.  To  form  and  support  an  unjust  pretension  is 
only  doing  an  injury  to  the  party  whose  interests  are  affected  by  that  pretension  ;  but  to 
despise  justice  in  general  is  doing  an  injury  to  all  nations." 

If  the  Juarez  government  invite  our  cooperation,  and  we  intervene, 
the  right  to  accede  to  the  request  is  perfectly  clear.  (Philliraore  on  In 
ternational  Law,  vol.  i.,  p.  443.)  The  treaty  does  invite  us,  in  most 
unmistakable  terms.  But  if  the  treaty  fail,  dare  we  promulge  the  doc 
trine  of  intervention,  irrespective  of  invitation?  To  the  curious  on  this 
point  I  refer  to  the  able  treatise  above  cited,  where  the  whole  doctrine  of 
intervention  is  considered,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  fourth  part  of  the 
first  volume.  Among  the  causes  given,  where  intervention  is  justifiable, 
pertinent  to  Mexico,  are  the  following :  where  the  peace  and  safety  of 
the  intervening  State  are  endangered  ;  where  parties  to  a  civil  war  invite  ; 
where  citizens  of  another  State  require  protection ;  where  intervention 
will  stay  the  effusion  of  blood  caused  by  a  protracted  civil  war.  The  able 
jurist  is  reluctant  to  establish  the  last  instance,  as  a  substantiative  and 
solitary,  but  only  as  an  accessory  justification  of  intervention.  The  par 
tition  of  Poland  stands  as  a  spectre  in  his  way ;  and  he  starts  back  in 
affright  at  the  abuses  which  so  destructive  a  principle  has  fixed  on  man 
kind.  But  he  finds  in  the  case  of  Greece,  in  1827,  a  justifiable  interven 
tion.  He  displays  the  long-continued  and  horrible  massacres  and  anarchy 
of  Greece,  as  reasons  "  which  alone,  if  ever  such  reasons  could,  jus 
tify  the  interference  of  Christendom."  The  case  of  Mexico,  however,  is 
not  to  be  determined  by  that  elastic  law  of  nations,  which  has  proved 
so  convenient  an  instrument  for  the  oppression  of  mankind.  In  America 
we  have  a  chapter  of  our  own,  written  by  James  Monroe,  and  fixed  as  the 
continental  policy  of  this  hemisphere.  No  international  law  which  omits 
this  chapter,  can  have  application  to  us  or  to  our  own  relations  with 
Mexico.  But  even  the  maxims  of  the  Old  World  are  warrant  enough, 
if  applied  with  discrimination,  for  our  prompt  intervention  by  actual  pos 
session  in  Mexico. 

Some  there  are  ever  ready  to  oppose  every  thing  which  looks  even  dis 
tantly  to  the  aggrandizement  and  extension  of  our  Republic.  I  belong 
to  that  party  which  Choate  described  as  having  a  "  gay  and  festive  defi 
ance  of  foreign  dictation  ; "  a  party  which  does  not  go  abroad  for  its  rules 
of  conduct.  But  if  there  are  such  who  fear  our  advancement,  to  such  the 
authority  of  foreign  journals  may  be  more  impressive  than  our  own  rights 
and  duties.  To  such,  therefore,  I  quote  the  London  Times,  the  thinking 
head  of  the  English  nation.  It  says : 

"  The  English  residents  who  have  cast  their  lot  with  the  inhabitants,  and  the  traders 
who  have  invested  money  in  enterprises  of  the  country,  are  in  the  same  position  as  the 
Mexicans  themselves.  How  can  we  or  any  one  interfere  but  by  taking  possession  of  the 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  143 

country  ?  Of  whom  arc  we  to  demand  an  explanation  ?  The  chief  of  the  Republic  to 
day  may  be  a  fugitive  in  a  week,  while  his  rival  steps  into  power  and  wreaks  vengeance 
on  all  the  late  officials.  Suppose  we  ask  for  satisfaction,  who  is  to  give  it  ?  The  outrage 
may  have  been  committed  by  the  other  party,  or  by  some  independent  ruffian  hundreds 
of  miles  off,  or  there  may  be  no  police  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  the  act,  and  no  money 
to  compensate  it.  In  fact,  where  there  is  no  settled  government,  the  ordinary  interna 
tional  remedies  fail." 

The  London  Times,  in  another  article,  used  the  following  significant 
language : 

"  Mexico  has  now  arrived  at  a  point  at  which  any  convulsion  may  improve  the  pros 
pect  of  her  foreign  creditors.  In  the  present  state  of  things  they  can  have  no  hope,  and 
their  great  dread,  therefore,  must  be  lest  it  should  be  perpetuated.  If  some  new  military 
dictator  were  to  arise,  or  the  country  were  to  be  absorbed,  without  more  delay,  by  the 
United  States,  their  treatment  could  not  be  worse,  and  it  might,  especially  in  the  latter 
case,  be  much  better."  *  *  *  "  Let  the  United  States,  when  they  are  finally  pre 
pared  for  it,  enjoy  all  the  advantages  and  responsibility  of  ownership,  and  our  merchants 
at  Liverpool  and  elsewhere  will  be  quite  content  with  the  trade  that  may  spring 
out  of  it." 

Since  then,  Mr.  Matthews,  the  English  Minister,  has  been  compelled 
to  protest  against  the  government  at  the  capital  of  Mexico,  and  he  now 
threatens  to  leave  it  to  its  fate.  There  is  only  one  remedy,  it  seems,  for 
Great  Britain  and  her  citizens  ;  possession  of  the  country  !  She  is  will 
ing  that  we  shall  do  that  office.  Mr.  Whitehead,  the  agent  of  the  English 
bondholders,  in  a  letter  of  the  26th  of  September,  1859,  could  see  "  no 
pacification,  except  by  the  intervention  of  some  powerful  nation ; "  and 
he  said  further,  that  "the  opinion  prevails  very  generally,  among  the  more 
sensible  part  of  the  Mexicans  themselves,  who,  without  desiring  annexa 
tion,  would  be  glad  to  see  something  of  an  armed  intervention  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States."  He  more  than  hints  that  it  is  the  policy  of  Eng 
land  to  promote  it.  Lord  John  Russell,  the  head  of  the  Foreign  Office, 
in  his  letter  of  the  16th  December,  1859,  to  the  Rothschilds,  seems  to 
be  hovering  near  that  idea.  He  says  :  "A  civil  war  rages  in  Mexico  be 
tween  two  parties,  who,  only  intent  on  destroying  their  adversaries,  have 
very  little  respect  for  the  rules  of  justice  or  the  safety  of  property."  "  Our 
Government  has  endeavored  in  vain  to  mediate,  by  the  aid  of  other  pow 
ers,  to  bring  about  a  termination  of  the  present  devastating  and  sangui 
nary  war." 

As  we  could  permit  no  European  nation  to  take  possession  of  Mexico 
without  dishonor,  so  we  are  bound  to  pursue  this  policy  by  a  rule  far 
more  authoritative  than  any  international  law.  Our  code  is  the  law  of 
necessity.  It  is  the  same  law  by  which  we  ought  to  save  our  neighbor's 
house,  when  its  burning  would  imperil  our  safety  and  destroy  our  peace. 
If  we  do  not  do  it,  what  objection  can  we  make  if  England  or  France 
attempt  it?  We  must  anticipate  the  else  inevitable  interference  of  these 
powers  on  this  continent.  If  we  do  not  interfere  now,  there  will  be  noth 
ing  to  save  but  a  desolated  land,  a  demoralized  citizenry,  an  empty  ex 
chequer,  a  mortgaged  revenue,  a  banditti  of  factious  States,  and  a  gov 
ernment  only  federative  in  a  league  with  death,  murder,  and  spoliation. 

There  is  yet  something  to  be  saved  in  Mexico.  If  we  act  promptly, 
we  become  partners  in  her  resources.  What  are  these  resources?  What 
are,  and  what  should  be,  our  relations  toward  them  ?  Mexico  has  now 
$26  000,000  of  foreign  imports,  and  $28,000,000  of  exports ;  making  an 


EIGHT   YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

interchange  of  $54,000,000.  .Of  this,  England  has  $33,400,000  ;  the 
United  States  only  $8,700,000.  England  thus  monopolizes  more  than 
one-half  of  this  commerce.  She  has  had  special  permits  to  import  at  a 
reduction  of  twenty-five  to  fifty  per  cent,  on  duties.  She  is  twenty  days 
distant  by  steam ;  while  on  the  Pacific  and  on  the  Gulf  we  are  at  the 
very  doors  of  Mexico.  Of  the  $8,700,000  of  our  commerce  with  Mexico, 
our  exports  for  the  year  ending  September  30,  1858,  were  but  $3,315,- 
825,  being  $2,000,000  less  than  our  imports  from  Mexico.  The  above 
fifty-odd  millions  does  not  include,  of  course,  the  immense  contraband 
trade,  which,  if  fairly  estimated,  would  run  Mexican  commerce  up  to 
$100.000,000.  Thirty  millions  of  this  is  silver,  which  mostly  goes  -to 
England.  If  the  produce  of  our  country — the  provisions  and  flour  of  the 
great  West,  the  varied  manufactures  of  the  North  in  wood  and  iron, 
which  are  finding  markets  in  the  West  Indies,  the  shipping  of  the  Gulf 
and  the  Pacific,  with  six  thousand  miles  of  Mexican  sea-coast,  and  the 
mining  enterprise  of  our  citizens,  had  a  full  range  under  a  good  govern 
ment,  with  this  reciprocal  free  trade,  under  this  well-conceived  treaty, 
what  a  tide  of  prosperity  would  flow  between  us  and  Mexico  !  The 
princely  city  of  London  votes  Lord  Elgin  its  hospitalities,  because  he 
quadrupled  the  trade  beween  us  and  Canada  by  the  reciprocity  treaty. 
He  boasted,  in  his  response  to  the  gratulations  of  the  merchant  kings, 
that  his  Chinese  treaty,  if  carried  out,  would  open  to  English  enterprise 
a  trade  with  four  hundred  million  people  !  Yet,  at  our  doors,  wre  neglect 
the  rarest  chances  of  commercial  enlargement.  There  is  not  a  product 
between  our  Mexican  boundary  and  Panama  which  is  not  wanted  by  us. 
There  is  not  a  product  of  our  skill  and  industry  that  will  not  find  a  mar 
ket  in  that  country.  May  I  not  be  pardoned  for  illustrating  this  view 
from  my  own  State  of  Ohio?  Its  statistician,  Mr.  Mansfield,  in  his  re 
port  of  1859,  estimates  our  grain  product  at  an  average  of  one  hundred 
and  twelve  million  eight  hundred  and  eighty-three  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  seventy  bushels.  Where  is  the  State  in  the  world  which  can  equal 
this  in  these  elements  of  life  ?  New  York  has  but  seventy-six  million  six 
hundred  and  thirty-nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ten  bushels ,  fewer 
acres  in  cultivation,  and  a  less  average  to  the  acre.  France,  with  her 
nicety  of  cultivation,  has  but  an  average  of  thirteen  and  a  half  bushels 
to  the  acre,  while  Ohio  has  twenty-two  and  a  half.  Gallicia  even  falls  be 
hind  this  model  State  of  the  Mississippi  valley,  where  more  people  can  live 
well  than  in  any  other  land  on  the  earth.  The  value  of  Ohio  live-stock 
ranges  over  seventy  million  dollars,  from  which  are  made  our  smoked 
and  salted  meats.  These  would  be  duty-free  under  this  treaty.  Has 
Ohio  no  surplus  for  exportation?  no  interest  in  an  extended  market? 
If  I  summoned  each  Representative  to  lay  before  us  the  speciality  of  his 
State  for  which  free  trade  is  offered  in  this  treaty,  what  a  museum  of 
national  exchanges  would  we  not  show,  to  pour  into  the  great  current  of 
trade  which  would  follow  its  ratification !  What  can  Mexico  give  us  in 
return?  Is  it  coffee  and  sugar?  Their  consumption  with  us  is  now  al 
most  as  general  as  that  of  bread.  Colima  and  the  other  Pacific  States 
offer  their  rich  coffee  and  sugar  lands,  unequalled  by  Cuba,  and  surpassing 
Louisiana  or  Texas.  The  present  supply  is  inadequate  to  our  demand. 
We  pay  too  much  for  both.  So  with  cocoa,  cochineal,  and  the  finer  quali- 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  145 

ties  of  tobacco.  So,  too,  with  the  tropical  fruits.  Our  iron,  in  all  its 
shapes  of  usefulness,  would  have  a  tine  chance  in  a  country  where,  at 
times,  it  has  been  of  equal  value  with  the  precious  metals,  and  where, 
even  yet,  wooden  ploughs  perform  the  office  in  agriculture  which  we  are 
beginning  to  perform  with  iron  and  steam.  And  yet  you  can  buy  to-day  in 
New  Orleans  thirty  thousand  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania  ploughs  at  thirty-six 
dollars  per  dozen  !  If  we  could  have  settled  relations  with  Mexico,  and 
if  Mexico  herself  could  be  tranquillized,  I  doubt  not  that  850,000,000  of 
silver  per  annum  could  be  produced.  Four-fifths  of  this  would  come  to 
us.  Our  mining  interests  now  give  us  $120,000,000,  with  only  twenty 
thousand  persons  employed.  Think  of  such  an  enterprise  applied  to  the 
silver  mines  of  Mexico  !  We  need  the  silver  to  purify  our  specie  currency 
of  its  adulterated  silver  coin.  We  have  the  quicksilver  now  in  our  midst 
to  aid  this  production.  We  must  change,  by  some  new  enterprise,  the 
ratio  between  the  production  of  gold  and  silver.  The  leads  of  the  east 
ern  slope  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  have  already  made  that  lonely  land  the 
seat  of  thriving  towns  and  remunerative  industry.  That  beautiful  pla 
teau,  those  affluent  gulches,  those  seams  of  gold-bearing  quartz,  whose 
amazing  extent  and  richness  are  described  in  memorials  on  our  table,  as 
lands  which  have  never  been  equalled  or  even  approached  at  any  period, 
on  the  face  of  the  earth,  for  their  miraculous  wealth — those  rivers,  whose 
sand  is  silver,  and  whose  pebbles  gold — are  not  merely  stimuli  to  our 
enterprise,  but  they  indicate,  by  their  topographical  and  geological  laws, 
and  by  their  position  as  a  part  of  the  great  range  from  Chili  to  Frazer's 
River,  that  they  are  the  approach,  the  vestibule  of  that  immense  temple, 
whose  sunless  architecture  has  its  endless  colonnade  and  mystic  cham 
bers  beneath  our  continental  sierras  !  From  these  sources  Spain  shone 
resplendent  for  centuries,  and  only  and  deservedly  lost  them  because  she 
lavished  them  on  a  corrupt  royalty  and  to  glut  a  base  avarice. 

In  Mexico  alone,  where  these  resources  were  only  "  scratched"  by  the 
rude  science  of  the  time,  from  the  conquest  (by  official  data  furnished  by 
the  Ministerio  de  Fomento),  we  find  a  coinage  of  $2,636,745,951,  figures 
under  which  the  mind  reels  in  its  romance  after  the  wonders  of  wealth ! 
Of  this  amount,  $2,534,115,679  were  of  silver  alone  !  The  gold  amount 
ed  to  $96,892,142.  What  a  fruitage  from  these  sterile  mountains  !  What 
apples  of  gold  in  pictures  of  silver !  No  Yankee  Aladdin  ever  had 
dreams  to  rival  this  arithmetic  of  ready  and  coined  cash  !  Quite  a  lot  of 
loose  change  to  chink  in  the  pantaloons  of  Young  America  !  [Laughter.] 
And  yet  this  land  of  sterile  sierras,  with  their  untold  coffers  of  wealth, 
has  no  parallel  for  the  salubrity  of  its  climate,  the  richness  of  its  soil,  and 
the  balmy  beauty  and  soft  influences  of  its  sky.  Mexico  has  her  Tierras 
Calientes,  her  Tierras  Frias ;  but  above  all,  her  Tierras  Templadas, 
which  combine  the  virtues  of  all  soils  and  the  beauties  of  all  heavens. 
Homer  had  poetic  glimpses  of  such  a  land,  when  he  thus  depicted  it : 

u  Stern  winter  smiles  on  that  auspicious  clime, 
The  fields  are  florid  with  unfading  prime ; , 
From  the  bleak  pole  no  winds  inclement  blow, 
Mould  the  round  hail,  or  flake  the  fleecy  snow  ; 
But  from  the  breezy  deep  the  blest  inhale 
The  fragrant  murmurs  of  the  western  gale." 

10 


146  EIGHT   YEAES   IN    CONGRESS. 

But  alas  !  civil  discord  is  the  serpent  of  this  paradise.  Anarchy,  like 
the  orange,  is  here  in  perpetual  fruit  and  bloom.  The  murdered  corpse 
is  found  beneath  the  palm  and  the  cocoa.  Here  every  prospect  pleases, 
and  only  man  is  vile.  If  it  be  true  that  the  weaker  and  disorganized 
nations  must  be  absorbed  and  controlled  by  the  strong  and  organized  na 
tions,  and  that  nationalities  of  inferior  grade  must  succumb  and  surrender 
to  those  of  a  superior  civilization  and  polity,  then  there  is  no  power  short 
of  the  Almighty  which  can  in  time  prevent  the  absorption,  agrandizc- 
ment,  and  elevation  of  this  rich  and  lovely  land  by  its  union  with  these 
States  of  confederated  and  constitutional  freedom.  Give  the  United 
States,  with  its  steam-engine,  its  unrest,  its  self-government,  and  its  en 
ergy,  the  protective  control  of  these  regions,  and  do  you  doubt  that  we 
would  outstrip  England  in  commerce?  The  commodities  for  interchange 
are  ready.  What  we  want  is  settled  relations  with  Mexico.  We  want  a 
steam  communication  on  the  Gulf,  which  will  be,  as  has  been  proved  by 
England  in  her  relations  with  Spanish  America,  and  by  us  in  our  relations 
with  Cuba,  the  open  sesame  to  the  riches  of  this  heaven-favored  and  man- 
cursed  country.  We  expend  our  money  in  opening  Japan  and  China  to 
the  world ;  we  send  ships  and  embassies,  and  cultivate  the  humanities 
and  amenities  of  the  age,  in  persuading,  astonishing,  and  interlocking  in 
mutual  interest  the  lands  of  the  far  Orient ;  but  at  our  very  threshold  we 
miss  our  golden  opportunities.  In  the  absence  of  a  well-defined  intercon 
tinental  policy,  such  as  is  proposed  in  the  treaty  and  message,  our  interests 
have  suffered  not  less  than  $30,000,000  per  annum.  For  ten  years  we 
have  been  struggling  for  a  safe  and  quick  transit  to  the  Pacific  in  vain. 
Capital  has  been  loath  to  venture,  for  the  reason  that  no  adequate  protec 
tion  has  been  given  in  its  use.  Emigration  has  been  meagre  and  un 
certain,  because  there  was  no  stimulus  to  labor  and  no  certainty  of  its 
results. 

I  have  thus  shown  the  condition  of  Mexico.  I  have  given  the  reasons 
why  some  intervention  should  be  had.  There  is  no  reason  in  the  interest 
of  economy  and  commerce,  as  indemnity  for  past  wrong  and  security  for 
future  immunity ;  in  the  interest  of  humanity  and  civilization ;  in  the 
code  international  or  the  forum  of  conscience ;  in  the  decrees  of  Divine 
Providence,  as  He  works  with  man  in  the  order  and  happiness  of  His 
creatures,  which  does  not  appeal  to  us  for  intervention  in  Mexico. 

I  proceed  to  notice  some  of  the  objections  against  the  policy  enun 
ciated. 

1.  Is  it  objected  that  our  intervention,  under  the  fifth  and  sixth  of  the 
conventional  articles  of  the  treaty,  by  force,  will  involve  us  in  war?  I 
believe  their  simple  ratification  would  bring  England  into  concert  with  us, 
drive  Miramon  from  the  country,  and,  by  such  a  partial  intervention  now, 
save  war  and  constant  intervention  hereafter.  We  must  else  contend 
with  France  and  England,  as  to  who  will  do  this  duty.  We  have  the  op 
portunity  of  assuring  to  Mexico  the  best  liberal  government  which  lias  yet 
arisen.  It  is  inclined  toward  us.  Even  Miramon,  when  protesting  to  us 
against  the  treaty,  considers  our  recognition  of  the  establishment,  as  he 
calls  it  (establecimiento),  at  Vera  Cruz,  as  a  thing  inexplicable  to  him — 
indeed,  such  a  policy  would  have  been  utterly  impossible  but  a  few  years 
ago,  when  Mexico  lived  upon  the  rant  of  the  soldiery  about  the  Yankees, 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  147 

and  before  her   statesmen   Lad   learned  to   understand   our   aims   and 
institutions. 

2.  Is  it  objected  that  this  treaty  will  prevent  annexation  ?     Why, 
Fuente,  the  Mexican  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  refused  to  sign  it  be 
cause  he  feared  to  give  away  the  sovereignty  of  Mexico  !     How  can  these 
objections  be  reconciled?     By  a  division  of  sovereignty.     But  what  is 
sovereignty  without  the  concomitant  power?      "What  the  empty  crown 
without  the  head  to  plan  or  the  arm  to  execute  ?     Mexico  has  the  right, 
but  not  the  power ;  we  furnish  the  last.     If,  then,  it  be  objected  to  this 
treaty  that  it  will  prevent  any  annexation  to  thi«  country,  because  it  ele 
vates  Mexico  into  the  dignity  of  an  assured  independence,  I  ask,  if  this 
followed,  would  annexation  be  less  desirable  or  less  probable  ? 

3.  Is  it  objected  that  we  have  territory  and  people  enough  for  our 
own  happiness  and  contentment?     If  Mr.  Jefferson  had  so  believed,  we 
never  should  have  had  our  southwestern  empire,  with  the  Mississippi, 
holding  by  its  mobile  drops  of  water  this  Union  in  its  steadfast  poise. 
If  John  Quincy  Adams  had  so  reasoned,  would  not  Florida  still  have 
been,  as  Cuba  is  now,  a  menace  to  our  peace  and  a  clog  to  our  progress? 
Had  Robert  J.  Walker  and  John  C.  Calhoun  so  believed,  we  never  should 
have  had  the  lone  star  of  Texas  on  our  flag  and  her  territory  in  our 
Union.     Had  James  K.   Polk   so  believed,  California  would  still  have 
remained  a  paralyzed  limb  of  the  diseased  body  of  Mexico.     Had  Pierce 
so  believed,  the  Mesilla  would  still  be  a  terra  incognita,  and  its  mineral 
wealth  would  have  had  no  chance  for  development.     I  have  no  fear  of 
territorial  expansion,  sir,  writh  the   spirit  of  the  Confederation  preserved 
uncorruptcd  and  pure. 

4.  Is  it  objected  that  Mexico  has  not  a  population  suited  to  our  sys 
tem  of  self-government?     Had  not  Louisiana  her  French,  Florida  and 
Texas  their  Spanish,  and  California  and  New  Mexico  a  population  like 
that  of  Mexico  ?     Had  not  all  our  States  their  native  Indian  population  ? 
These  are  becoming  homogeneous  with  the  lapse  of  time.     There  is  no 
reason  why,  under  our  system  of  local  self-government  and  Federal  de 
centralization,  all  Mexico  should  not  live  and  progress  under  our  Govern 
ment,  with  the  same  success  to  herself  and  safety  to  us  which  these  ac 
quisitions  have  witnessed. 

5.  Is  it  objected  that  already  we  have  distractions  and  threats  of  dis 
solution  ?     Is  it  said  that  more  territory  would  only  add  to  our  disquie 
tude  ?     Is  the  slavery  question  to  disturb  us  in  the  path  of  empire  ?     Are 
we  to  be  hemmed  in  by  fear  of  disunion  ?     If  this  country,  with  its  pres 
ent  Constitution,  reposing  on  the  intelligence  of  our  people  and  the  his 
tory  of  its  formation,  cannot  grow  without  danger,  it  cannot  live  much 
longer  without  gangrene  and  decay.     If  there  be  vitality  to  hold  us  to 
gether,  there  is  vitality  with  which  to  expand.     Nay,  without  this  expan 
sion,  decay  is  more  rapid  and  disruption  more  certain.     This  country  has 
settled  one  thing  beyond  the  power  of  politicians  to  disturb  it ;  and  that 
is,  that  the  Federal  Government  shall  not  intervene  in  the  home  affairs 
of  the  States ;  and  that  when  they  are  in  preparation  for  admission,  no 
power  but  themselves,  guided  by  their  own  wants  and  interests,  shall,  or 
of  right  ought  to,  prohibit  or  establish,  or  in  any  way  control,  their  do 
mestic  institutions. 


148  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Mr.  STANTOX.  Has  the  gentleman  read  the  veto  messages  of  Gov 
ernors  Black  and  Medary?  Perhaps  if  he  had,  he  would  not  regard  that 
doctrine  as  the  fixed  policy  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Cox.  This  decentralizing  doctrine  makes  expansion  safe.  If 
this  be  accepted  as  the  policy  of  the  country,  expansion  has  no  terrors 
which  do  not  now  menace  us.  Nay,  an  active  outgoing  policy  would  di 
vert  attention  from  internal  dissensions.  It  would  pour  a  vigorous  life- 
blood  into  the  older  States.  It  would  give  activity  to  young  and  vigorous 
States,  which  would  hasten  under  our  protecting  a3gis. 

I  have  no  argument  to  make  in  an  American  Congress  for  or  against 
slavery.  Its  discussion,  in  an  ethical  light,  was  exhausted  by  Aristotle 
two  thousand  years  ago.  The  polemics  of  New  England  do  no  more 
than  echo  the  words  of  the  Stagyrite.  They  cannot  add  any  thing  to  this 
discussion.  As  an  economical  question,  if  slavery  could  be  made  profit 
able  in  Mexico,  it  would  go  there.  It  may,  therefore,  go  to  the  tierras 
calientes.  It  never  went  there  under  Spanish  rule,  and  cannot  go  there  now 
for  physical  reasons.  Mr.  Greeley  wonders  why  Mr.  Buchanan  should 
covet  it,  when  its  soil  and  production  unfit  it  for  slave  labor  !  He  would 
wonder  no  more  if  he  understood  the  Ostend  manifesto  in  its  comprehen 
sive  sense.  It  is  no  matter,  in  so  far  as  it  concerns  our  Federal  unity — 
how  much  soever  it  may  concern  our  ethics — how  many  slave  or  free 
States  we  have,  so  long  as  they  are  equal  under  a  sacred  organic  law. 
Already  the  preponderance  in  favor  of  free  States  is  declared.  Southern 
statesmen  like  Hammond  and  Stephens  acquiesce  in  it  as  a  part  of  the 
law  of  emigration,  locomotion,  and  population.  Mexico  would  aggran 
dize  our  slave  States,  if  she  would  not  furnish  one  from  her  area.  Dis 
similarity  of  States  in  production  and  institutions  is  a  part  of  our  system. 
Out  of  these  brotherly  dissimilitudes,  as  out  of  the  vari-colored  stones  of 
the  quarry,  a  fabric  has  arisen,  whose  harmony  and  majesty  of  propor 
tion  and  strength  are  the  wonder  of  art !  With  this  as  our  policy,  our 
territorial  expansion  is  as  illimitable  as  the  continent  and  as  safe  as  the 
stars  in  their  appointed  orbits.  As  safe  as  the  stars  :  for  they,  too,  like 
nations,  are  the  effluence  of  God,  evolving  and  expanding  through  the 
universe  by  the  everlasting  law  of  growth  !  They  obey  the  same  law  by 
which  the  seed  bursts  into  life,  rises  above  the  ground,  effloresces  and 
decays  with  perpetual  bloom  and  sere.  The  same  law  of  growth  applies 
to  our  physical  bodies  as  well  as  to  the  heavenly  bodies.  Without  growth 
both  body  and  mind  decay  and  die.  Growth  is  the  condition  of  health. 
It  is  so  with  nations.  History  writes  it  on  the  frontlet  of  time  as  its  fore 
most,  grandest  conception.  God  writes  it  in  the  flower,  in  the  globular 
water  drop,  and  the  star,  as  well  as  in  Egypt,  Rome,  and  Greece.  In 
the  feudal  ages  of  darkness,  and  in  the  later  ages  of  illumination ;  in  the 
eras  of  despotism,  as  well  as  of  liberty ;  wherever  His  finger  records  His 
fiat  upon  the  everlasting  scroll,  there  is  this  law  :  "  Whosoever,  whatso 
ever  doth  not  grow,  is  dead  already  ! " 

Is  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  an  exception  ?  Is  this  great  self-government, 
whose  next  census  will  show  under  its  flag  thirty-six  million  people,  and 
an  advancement  greater  than  ever  before  in  material  wealth,  to  become 
the  laggard  of  the  century?  Will  the  next  seventy  years  witness  the 
retrogression  of  this  continent  into  anarchy  and  ruin  ?  Is  Mexico's  past 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  149 

thirty  years  the  index  to  show  how  far  toward  the  occulation  is  the  orb 
of  our  destiny?  Or  is  Mexico  to  be  invigorated  and  renewed  by  a  new 
life  from  this  race  of  ours  ?  May  not  the  mines  of  Chihuahua  and  Guana 
juato  be  made  to  glisten  again  under  our  energy  ?  Will  not  the  valley  of 
the  Aztecs  again  blossom  as  the  rose,  under  a  better  dispensation  of  civil 
rights  and  social  order  ?  May  not  those  mysterious  palaces,  buried  deep 
in  the  solitudes  of  Yutacan,  whose  sculptured  facades  Stephens  desired  to 
rescue  from  destruction,  again  resound  with  the  voice  of  life  and  bless 
ing?  May  not  the  fisheries  of  the  California  Gulf  become  the  source  of 
a  new  trade,  and  its  pearls  deck  the  diadem  of  a  new  empire?  These 
may  be  dreams,  but  I  have  yet  to  see  the  American  who  will  not  say  that 
at  some  time  and  in  some  emergency  the  United  States  will "  have  to  take 
charge  "  of  Mexico,  and,  if  necessary,  gather  up  her  mutilated  members, 
and,  by  the  charm  of  our  polity,  fit  them  to  each  other — articulation,  ten 
don,  muscle,  bone,  and  sinew — and  breathe  into  the  form  the  soul  of  an 
active  and  benignant  juvenescence  ! 

If  any  Power  interfere  in  Mexico,  it  must  be  either  France,  Spain, 
England,  or  the  United  States.  The  interference  of  Spain  would  only 
renew,  with  tenfold  force,  the  antagonisms  which  now  beset  Mexico.  Do 
we  want  England  to  make  another  Canada  on  our  south  ;  to  hold  us  within 
her  iron  vice  ?  But  England  has  expressed  the  wish  that  we  should  in 
terfere.  The  late  accomplished  Colonial  Minister,  Sir  Edward  Bulwer 
Lytton,  gave  voice  to  the  best  sentiment  of  the  proud  British  mind,  in  the 
conclusion  of  his  speech  for  the  establishment  of  the  British  Columbia 
Government,  on  the  8th  of  July,  1858,  when  he  said : 

"  I  conclude,  sir,  with  an  humble  trust,  that  the  Divine  Disposer  of  all  human  events 
may  afford  the  safeguard  of  His  blessing  to  our  attempt  to  add  another  community  of 
Christian  freemen  to  those  by  which  Great  Britain  confides  the  records  of  her  empire, 
not  to  pyramids  and  obelisks,  but  to  States  and  Commonwealths,  whose  history  will  be 
written  in  her  language." 

Some  of  England's  statesmen  have  taunted  us  with  having  no  foreign 
policy.  We  deserved  the  taunt.  If  rightly  understood,  England,  sir,  has 
nothing  but  pride  in  these  outgrowths  of  her  own  strength ;  and  she  will 
have  no  protest  to  make  against  the  honor  and  advancement  of  her  own 
offspring.  Laying  England  and  the  United  States  aside,  what  would  be 
the  result  of  a  French  interference  ?  Not  very  remotely,  a  war  of  races 
for  supremacy,  not  alone  in  Mexico,  but  on  this  continent.  The  Latin 
race  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  cannot  expand  here  without  collision.  The 
Anglo-Saxon,  or  rather  the  Anglo-American  race,  which  is  the  best  de 
velopment  of  the  Teutonic  and  Celtic,  for  adventure,  enterprise,  and  mar 
tial  success,  has  already  combined  the  white  races  in  America  north  of 
Mexico  into  liberal  governments.  History  shows  that  that  race  has-  no 
returning  footstep  in  its  advancement.  Is  it  desirable  to  arra^  these  ele 
ments  here,  in  the  face  of  this  indomitable  race  ? 

An  intervention  by  us,  supporting  a  liberal  Government  like  that  of 
Juarez,  which  offers  us  free  and  safe  intercourse,  emigration,  and  religious 
toleration,  with  a  stipulation  by  which  our  arms  can  be  called  in  to  crush 
anarchy  and  enforce  order,  is  the  only  mode  by  which  jealousy  can  be 
avoided  and  order  established.  A  suffrage  by  which  the  felon  and  the  in 
ferior  races  of  Mexico  are  restricted  for  a  decade,  would  stay  Mexico 


150  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

from  an  inevitable  relapse  into  barbarism,  and,  at  the  same  time,  by  en 
hancing  property  and  promoting  prosperity,  reconcile  every  impatient  cle 
ment  in  Mexico  to  our  salutary  protectorate. 

A  year  ago,  when  I  suggested  to  this  Congress  that  the  juncture  was 
upon  us  when  we  should  stop  marking  time,  and  begin  moving  forward, 
and  that  Congress  was  not  up  with  the  enterprise  of  the  nation,  the  Madrid 
and  Paris  presses  did  me  the  honor  to  translate  my  speech,  and  to  give  it 
more  importance  than  it  merited,  as  the  expression  of  what  La  Cronica 
newspaper  was  pleased  to  call  the  impetuosity  of  La  Joven  America.  It 
expressed  its  amazement  at  the  simple  remark,  "  that,  if  we  consider  just 
now  the  elements  of  our  people — martial,  mechanical,  intellectual,  agri 
cultural,  and  political — who  will  doubt  that  there  are  a  dozen  locomotive 
republics  already  fired  up  and  ready  for  movement?"  But,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  put  it  to  the  members  of  this  House,  whether  there  "be  one  here  who 
cannot  say,  that  at  least  one  regiment  combining  such  elements  can  be 
mustered  in  each  of  the  two  hundred  and  thirty-seven  districts  of  the  Uni 
ted  States?  If  legal  sanction  were  given,  either  by  the  repeal  of  the  neu 
trality  laws  or  by  some  other  Governmental  action,  quadruple  this  number 
could  be  raised  before  the  telegraph  had  finished  clicking  the  inspiring  in 
telligence.  That  this  is  so,  we  cannot  help.  We  should  not  desire  to  re 
press,  only  to  restrain  it.  However  much  our  caution  may  condemn  and 
guard  these  elements,  there  is  not  an  American  who  does  not  cherish  a 
lurking,  smiling  approbation  of  this  adventurous  and  elastic  spirit  which 
thrills  the  great  nation  of  the  New  World  !  Call  it  what  you  will — mani 
fest  destiny,  territorial  expansion,  star  of  empire,  La  Joven  America,  and 
even  h'llibusterism — it  is  here.  We  must  make  the  best  of  it.  If  its 
current  be  not  properly  restrained  within  its  banks,  if  we  neglect,  despise, 
or  unduly  repress  it,  it  will  only  spend  its  force  violently  and  disastrously, 
when  once  it  takes  its  destined  way ! 

Is  there  any  American  who  wishes  to  consult  European  Powers  as  to 
the  propriety  or  policy  of  such  an  expansion  ?  Is  there  any  one  who  fears 
a  fatal  blow  from  these  Powers  ?  We  do  not  exist  by  the  sufferance  of 
Europe,  but  by  its  insufferance.  We  did  not  grow  to  our  present  great 
ness  by  its  fostering  care ;  but  by  its  neglect,  and  in  spite  of  its  malevo 
lence.  We  do  not  ask  its  pardon  for  being  born,  nor  need  we  apologize 
to  it  for  growing.  It  has  endeavored  to  prevent  even  the  legitimate  ex 
tension  of  our  commerce,  and  to  confine  us  to  our  own  continent.  But  if 
we  can  buy  Cuba  of  Spain,  it  is  our  business  with  Spain.  If  we  have  to 
take  it,  it  is  our  business  with  Providence.  If  we  must  save  Mexico,  and 
make  its  weakness  our  strength,  we  have  no  account  to  render  unto 
Europe  or  its  dynasties.  A  year  ago,  in  glancing  at  European  politics,  I 
foresaw  the  portentous  storm  of  the  coming  war.  Scarcely  had  my  lan 
guage  be  en  published,  before  the  balance  of  power  quivered  over  Europe, 
and  snapped  like  brittle  glass,  at  an  imperial  yet  sinister  New  Year's  greet 
ing  in  the  Tuileries  to  the  Austrian  Minister.  Soon  the  sword  of  Napo 
leon  was  thrown  into  the  scales  of  Italian  independence  !  The  treaties  of 
1814  fell.  The  alliances  of  one  year  ago  were  blown  into  fragments  from 
the  rifled  cannon  of  Solferino.  As  a  consequence  of  this  condition,  not 
yet  settled,  all  such  alliances  cannot  be  relied  on  to  pursue  us  to  any  fatal 
end  on  this  continent. 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  151 

If  European  Powers  choose  to  expand  tlieir  empire  and  energize  their 
people,  we  have  no  protests,  no  arms  to  prevent  them.  England  may 
push  from  India  through  the  Himalayas  to  sell  her  calicoes  to  the  number 
less  people  of  Asia,  and  divide  with  France  the  empires  of  India,  Burmah, 
and  China.  Civilization  does  not  lose  by  their  expansion.  Russia  may 
push  her  diplomacy  upon  Pekin,  and  her  armies  through  the  Caucasus,  and 
upon  Persia  and  Tartary  ;  she  may  even  plant  her  Greek  cross  again  on 
the  mosque  of  St.  Sophia,  and  take  the  Grecian  Levant  into  her  keeping 
as  the  head  of  its  Church  and  civilization.  France  may  plant  her  forts 
and  arts  upon  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea ;  complete  the  canalization  of 
Suez  ;  erect  another  Carthage  on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean ;  bind 
her  natural  limits  from  Mont  Blanc,  in  Savoy,  to  Nice,  upon  the  sea. 
Sardinia  may  become  the  nucleus  of  the  Peninsula,  and  give  to  Italy  a 
name  and  a  nationality.  Even  Spain,  proud  and  poor,  may  fight  over 
again  in  Africa  the  romantic  wars  with  the  Morescoes,  by  which  she  edu 
cated  that  chivalry  and  adventure,  which  three  centuries  ago  made  her 
the  mistress  of  the  New  World.  She  may  demand  territory  of  Morocco, 
as  idemnity  for  the  war.  America  has  no  inquiry  to  make,  no  protocol  to 
sign.  These  are  the  movements  of  an  active  age.  They  indicate  health, 
not  disease — growth,  not  decay.  They  are  links  in  the  endless  chain  of 
Providence.  They  prove  the  mutability  of  the  most  imperial  of  human 
institutions  ;  but,  to  the  philosophic  observer,  they  move  by  a  law  as  fixed 
as  that  which  makes  the  decay  of  autumn  the  herald  of  spring.  They 
obey  the  same  law  by  which  the  constellations  change  their  places  in  the 
sky.  Astronomers  tell  us  that  the  "  southern  cross,"  which  guarded  the 
adventurer  upon  the  Spanish  main  four  centuries  ago,  and  which  now  can 
be  seen,  the  most  beautiful  emblem  of  our  salvation,  shining  down  through 
a  Cuban  and  Mexican  night — just  before  the  Christian  era  glittered  in 
our  northern  heavens !  The  same  GREAT  WILL,  which  knows  no  North 
and  no  South,  and  which  is  sending  again,  by  an  irreversible  law,  the 
southern  cross  to  our  northern  skies,  on  its  everlasting  cycle  of  emigration — 
does  it  not  control  the  revolutions  of  nations,  and  the  vicissitudes  of  em 
pires?  The  very  stars  in  their  courses  are  "Knights  of  the  Golden 
Circle,"  and  illustrate  the  record  of  human  advancement.  They  are  the 
type  of  that  territorial  expansion  from  which  this  American  continent 
cannot  be  exempted  without  annihilation.  The  finger  of  Providence 
points  to  our  nation  as  the  guiding  star  of  this  progress.  Let  him  who 
would  either  dusk  its  radiancy,  or  make  it  the  meteor  of  a  moment,  cast 
again  with  nicer  heed  our  nation's  horoscope. 


HAYTI  AND  LIBERIA. 

COMMERCIAL    QUESTIONS    MORE   IMPORTANT  THAN    RECOGNITION — BLACK   REPUBLICS — NEGBO 
EQUALITY — COLONIZATION. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  June  2,  1862. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  propose,  in  the  few  remarks  which  I  shall  make,  to  give 
something  in  brief  of  the  history,  condition,  and  commerce  of  Hayti  and 
Liberia. 


152  EIGHT   YEARS   EST   CONGRESS. 

As  far  as  relates  to  the  history  of  Ilayti,  the  very  events  by  which  it 
is  marked,  not  only  during  the  existence  of  slavery  but  since  emancipation 
in  1793,  show  the  inferior  state  of  its  civilization,  and  especially  of  its 
present  negro  rulers.  From  its  discovery  by  Columbus  in  1492,  and  the 
subsequent  foundation  of  St.  Domingo  by  the  Spaniards,  until  its  pillage 
in  1586  by  the  British  Admiral  Drake,  devastation  and  the  extermination 
of  the  aborigines  by  their  former  rulers  appear  to  have  been  the  only 
work.  Hayti  then  fell  partly  under  the  power  of  French  filibusters,  who, 
in  1G30,  took  entire  possession  of  and  colonized  the  western  portions  of 
the  island.  The  colony  was  recognized  by  France  in  1677  ;  and  in  1697, 
at  the  congress  of  Ryswick,  the  French  possession  thereof  was  sanctioned 
by  Spain,  England,  and  Holland.  From  that  period  up  to  1789,  a  period 
of  ninety-two  years,  during  which  the  French  ruled,  Hayti  increased  both 
in  population  and  in  commerce,  and  the  statistics  of  the  latter  year  bring 
the  exports  for  the  same  at  the  high  figure  of  205,000,000f.  (nearly  $48,- 
000,000).  But  the  rude  treatment  of  the  slaves  during  this  period  ripened 
into  revolution.  Forgetting  the  unsuccessful  attempt  at  rebellion  of  1722, 
they  rose  en  masse  against  their  French  masters  in  1791,  under  the  leader 
ship  of  one  Bonkman.  After  committing  all  sorts  of  atrocities,  they  com 
pleted  their  work  by  a  massacre  of  all  the  white  race,  June  23,  1793, 
under  Mayaca,  another  black  chief.  In  1794,  France  appointed  Tous- 
saint  L'Ouverture,  a  negro,  general-in-chief  of  the  Haytien  troops.  This 
is  the  negro  whom  Wendell  Phillips  thought  equal,  if  not  superior,  to 
George  Washington.  In  1795  Spain  ceded  to  France  the  east  part  of  the 
island.  Soon  after  Toussaint  declares  the  island  independent.  In  1802 
the  French  General  Leclerc,  with  twenty  thousand  French  troops,  lands 
at  St.  Domingo,  surprises  and  makes  Toussaint  prisoner,  and  sends  him 
to  France.  In  the  following  year  Dessalines,  another  negro  chieftain, 
leads  the  blacks,  beats  the  French,  and  drives  off  the  island  Rochambeau, 
Leclerc's  successor,  who  is  thereby  compelled  to  surrender  to  the  British 
fleet.  After  this  Dessalines  assumes  imperial  powers  over  the  island, 
under  the  name  of  "  James  I."  In  1806  he  is  assassinated,  and,  after 
Petion's  and  Christophe's  quarrels  for  the  possession  of  the  throne  up  to 
1820,  one  Boyer  assumes  the  power,  and  is  proclaimed  in  1822.  France 
recognizes  the  independence  of  the  island  in  1825,  and  receives  an  indem 
nity  of  150,000,000f.  therefor.  In  1843  Boyer  is  accused  of  tyranny  and 
deposed.  Herard  succeeds  him ;  then  Guerrier,  in  1844  ;  then  Pierrot, 
in  1845  ;  then  Riche,  in  1846  ;  and  then  Soulouque,  in  1847.  While  the 
negro  presidents  were  thus  succeeding  one  another,  St.  Domingo  secedes 
in  1844,  and  constitutes  itself  an  independent  republic,  under  President 
Pedro  Santana.  France  recognized  the  new  republic  in  1848  ;  England 
in  1850.  In  1849,  August  26,  Soulouque  becomes  Emperor,  under  the 
name  of  Faustin  I.  On  December  22,  1858,  a  new  revolution  arises,  led 
by  Fabre  Geffrard.  On  the  15th  of  January,  1859,  Soulouque  abdicates, 
and  Geffrard  is  proclaimed  President  the  same  day.  On  March  18,  1861, 
St.  Domingo  asks  to  be  annexed  to  Spain,  and  the  request  is  granted  by 
the  queen  on  the  20th  of  the  following  May.  The  portion  of  the  island 
thus  annexed  to  Spain  is  by  far  the  largest,  though  less  populated.  The 
Gotha  Almanac  gives  it  an  area  of  12,960  square  miles  ;  but  from  recent 
admeasurement  by  a  French  officer,  it  appears  to  have  about  15,000 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  153 

square  miles,  having  a  population  of  little  over  200,000.  The  republic 
of  Hayti  has  an  area  of  9,000,  and  by  recent  measurement  10,000  square 
miles,  with  a  population  of  560,000  inhabitants.  Its  revenue  in  1859  was 
$1,762,500;  expenditure,  8972,572;  debt  to  France,  60,000,000f.  (about 
$11,250,000),  the  original  debt  of  150,000,000f.  having  been  greatly 
reduced. 

In  the  Commercial  Relations  for  1860,  page  701,  our  commerce  witfi 
Hayti  is  set  down  for  all  the  ports.  I  know  my  friend  from  Massachu 
setts  relies  on  a  statement  inserted  in  the  speech  of  Senator  SUMNER  ;  and 
it  is  said  to  be  made  out  in  the  Treasury.  I  greatly  distrust  any  thing  in 
the  shape  of  figures  about  Hayti.  There  are  money  sharks  about  ready 
to  trade  in  the  business  of  shipping  our  negroes  thither  ;  and  their  motives 
for  making  figures  are  not  always  the  most  unselfish. 

In  his  pamphlet  speech,  Mr.  SUMNER  gives  the  sums  of  82,673,682 
for  one  year's  exports,  and  82,062,723  for  imports  during  the  same  period, 
ending  September,  1860.  There  is  a  large  mistake  certainly  in  the  im 
ports  here.  The  last  returns  of  the  general  commerce  of  Hayti  for  1859 
give  the  following  figures,  viz. :  Imports  9,000,000  Prussian  thalers,  little 
over  $6,000,000  ;  exports  12,000,000  thalers.  The  number  of  vessels 
employed  in  that  trade  was  310,  measuring  61,420  tons,  and  of  these 
152  were  American,  56  English,  54  French,  and  the  other  48  of  all  na 
tions.  When  we  compare  these  figures  with  those  shown  in  the  returns 
of  1789,  at  which  period  the  exports  alone  reach  the  sum  of  205,000,000f. 
(about  $48,000,000),  we  cannot  help  admitting  the  deteriorated  state  of 
the  industrial  capacities  of  the  black  Haytiens. 

In  relation  to  Liberia,  the  books  of  geography  and  statistics  give  the 
following  information  :  Area  about  25,000  square  miles,  population  200,- 
000,  colony  founded  in  1821  ;  the  territory  purchased  from  the  aborgines. 
Over  twenty  small  sovereignties  were  thus  extinguished.  The  declaration 
of  independence  and  political  existence  as  a  Goverment  dates  in  1847,  at 
which  period  they  adopted  a  constitution  somewhat  similar  to  ours.  They 
elect  their  president  for  two,  their  senators  for  four,  and  their  representa 
tives  for  two  years.  All  men  who  own  real  estate  to  the  amount  of  thirty 
dollars  are  electors.  Their  revenue  is  derived  from  duty  on  imports  and 
the  sale  of  public  lands.  These  are  sold  at  from  fifty  cents  to  one  dollar  and 
a  quarter  per  acre.  Their  capital  is  Monrovia,  besides  which  they  have 
eight  small  towns  and  several  minor  settlements.  The  produce  so  far  has 
been  ivory,  palm  oil,  common  gold  dust,  coffee,  sugar,  cocoa,  cotton,  in 
digo,  ginger,  and  arrow  root.  Horses  and  other  draught  animals  do  not 
prosper,  and  goods  are  brought  on  men's  backs  from  long  distances.  The 
climate  so  far  has  been  unhealthy.  Communications,  except  by  water  be 
tween  the  sea-ports,  are  difficult  from  the  absence  of  roads. 

In  Commercial  Relations  for  1860,  page  680,  I  find  the  navigation 
and  commerce  of  the  United  States  with  Monrovia  during  the  four  quar 
ters  ending  September,  1860,  to  be  as  follows :  exports  8158,735.70,  im 
ports  $126,276.59. 

If  there  is  any  commerce  with  other  ports  of  Liberia,  it  is  not  shown. 
In  the  pamphlet  speech  .made  by  Mr.  SUMNER  on  this  bill,  the  exports  to 
Monrovia  are  brought  up  to  8200,000,  and  to  the  whole  republic,  to 
1,000  !  Quite  in  contrast  with  the  above  statement. 


154  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

England  recognized  the  republic  of  Liberia  in  1848,  and  France  in 
1854.  From  the  late  reports  of  the  Colonization  Society,  it  would  seem 
that  Spain  and  other  Powers  have  since  done  the  same,  as  I  propose  to  do  it 
commercially.  According  to  the  Gotha  Almanac,  the  three  Powers  first 
named  have  each  a  consul  at  Monrovia.  The  United  States  have  a  vice 
commercial  agent  at  Monrovia  and  one  at  Gaboon.  Liberia  has  nine  con 
suls  in  England,  and  one  or  two  in  each  of  the  other  countries  above,  except 
the  United  States.  Since  1821,  the  republic  has  extended  its  limits,  and  it 
must  therefore  have  over  30,000  square  miles.  Its  population  are  emi 
grants  from  this  country.  They  have  been  slaves  here.  They  do  not 
exceed  15,000.  The  savage  population  is  over  200,000.  From  its  social 
relations  with  the  neighboring  negro  tribes,  it  exercises  quite  an  influence 
over  nearly  two  millions  of  souls.  Its  geographical  position  and  its  capacity 
of  producing  many  articles  make  its  prospects  bright,  and  it  can  be 
looked  upon  as  a  centre  from  which  improvement  may  diverge.  As  a 
sort  of  appanage  of  the  United  States,  I  would  not  discourage  its  progress. 
Nor  do  I  believe  the  best  friends  of  Liberia  wish  to  see  it  made  the  abo 
lition  foot-ball  in  this  House  for  party  ends.  Those  who  now  seek  to 
make  Liberia  the  instrument  for  forcing  their  doctrines  of  equality,  have 
not  heretofore  been  friends  to  the  colony  and  its  objects. 

The  question  occurs  with  reference  to  both  Hayti  and  Liberia,  whether 
we  cannot  with  the  aid  of  commercial  agents  and  consuls,  and  without 
the  aid  of  ministers  resident,  assist  in  the  development  of  the  prosperity 
Tand  trade  of  these  countries. 

This  is  the  sincere  desire  w^hich  I  had  in  offering  my  substitute ; 
therefore  I  will  not  controvert  any  statement  as  to  the  commerce  of 
these  countries.  Be  it  great  or  small,  I  would  foster  it. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  matters  not  how  much  our  commerce  is  with 
these  countries,  that  commerce  is  not  to  be  increased  and  fostered  by  the 
mode  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.  The  object  sought 
by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  in  this  bill  is  not  so  much  to  in 
crease  the  commercial  relations  of  the  United  States  with  the  countries 
named  as  to  give  a  sort  of  dignity  and  equality  to  these  republics,  because 
they  are  black  republics.  It  is,  therefore,  literally  a  Black  Republican 
measure,  and  that  is  all  there  is  in  it.  If  the  gentleman  really  wants  to 
enlarge  our  commercial  relations  with  them,  my  amendment  will  answer 
that  purpose.  It  will  be  most  effectual,  because  consuls  general  invested 
with  the  power  to  make  treaties  will  answer  every  commercial  purpose. 
The  idea  seems  to  prevail  with  the  gentleman  that  no  one  can  make  a 
treaty  or  foster  commerce  between  nations  except  a  minister  resident. 
Now,  sir,  the  very  origin  and  intention  of  the  consular  office  and  his  func 
tion  arc  to  protect  commerce.  That  is  his  special  business  ;  and  while  we 
may  also  authorize  consuls  general  to  make  treaties,  and  exercise  other 
diplomatic  functions,  still  commerce  is  his  sole  object  and  aim.  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  say  that  our  consuls  in  foreign  countries  cannot  make 
treaties  ;  that  they  are  not  clothed  with  diplomatic  functions.  If  this  be 
so,  my  amendment  proposes  to  give  them  whatever  power  they  may  re 
quire  for  that  purpose.  It  is  very  well  known  that  our  consul  at  Japan, 
Townsend  Harris,  and  while  consul,  made  a  treaty  between  that  empire 
and  the  United  States,  nor  do  I  know  that  special  powers  had  to  be  cou- 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  155 

ferred  upon  him.  In  the  Statutes  at  Large  for  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress, 
page  99,  is  to  be  found  the  treaty  which  was  made  between  Japan  and 
the  United  States.  It  was  made  in  the  city  of  Yedo,  Japan,  on  the  29th 
of  July,  1858,  and  was  ratified  by  the  President  and  the  Senate  in  1860. 
It  is  signed  by  Townsend  Harris,  "  consular  agent  for  Japan,  on  the  par- 
of  the  United  States  of  America,"  and  by  the  proper  officers  on  the  part 
of  his  majesty  the  Tycoon,  and  the  empire  of  Japan.  The  House  will  see 
from  this  instance  that  these  consular  agents  can  not  only  make  treaties, 
but  that  they  are  much  more  likely  than  ministers  to  foster  and  increase 
commerce  with  foreign  nations.  It  is  their  duty  to  watch  over  and  protect 
commerce.  They  have  connection  with  merchants.  They  are  sometimes 
selected  because  they  are  merchants,  while  ministers  resident  too  often  are 
selected  because  they  are  noisy  politicians.  If  we  look  abroad  into  the 
second-class  missions  of  Europe,  we  see  them  lounging  about  the  cafes  in 
the  continental  cities  or  swelling  in  grandeur  through  the  effete  republics 
of  South  America,  doing  very  little,  if  any  thing  at  all,  to  promote  foreign 
commerce  with  the  United  States.  Therefore  all  this  argument  in  rela 
tion  to  the  amount  of  commerce  between  this  country  and  Liberia  and 
Hayti  goes  for  nothing,  so  far  as  this  recognition  is  concerned.  All  this 
talk  of  commerce  is  a  mere  pretext ;  consular  agents  may  not  only  do  the 
duties  which  are  proposed  in  this  instance,  but  they  are  especially  made 
the  guardians  of  such  interests.  I  will  refer  to  Vattel  on  this  point. 
On  pages  147  and  148  he  uses  the  following  language : 

"  Among  the  modern  instiutions  for  the  advantage  of  commerce,  one  of  the  most  use 
ful  is  that  of  consuls,  or  persons  residing  in  the  large  trading  cities,  and  especially  the 
sea-ports,  of  foreign  countries,  with  a  commission  to  watch  over  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  their  nation,  and  to  decide  disputes  between  her  merchants  there.  When  a  nation 
trades  largely  with  a  country,  it  is  requisite  to  have  there  a  person  charged  with  such  a 
commission  ;  and,  as  the  State  which  allows  of  this  commerce  must  naturally  favor  it,  for 
the  same  reason,  also,  it  must  admit  the  consul."  ****** 

"  The  consul  is  no  public  minister  (as  will  appear  by  what  we  shall  say  of  the  charac 
ter  of  ministers  in  our  fourth  book),  and  cannot  pretend  to  the  privileges  annexed  to  such 
character.  Yet,  bearing  his  sovereign's  commission,  and  being  in  this  quality  received  by 
the  prince  in  whose  dominions  he  resides,  he  is,  in  a  certain  degree,  entitled  to  the  pro 
tection  of  the  law  of  nations.  The  sovereign,  by  the  very  act  of  receiving  him,  tacitly 
engages  to  allow  him  all  the  liberty  and  safety  ueceFsary  to  the  proper  discharge  of  his 

functions,  without  which  the  admission  of  the  consul  would  be  nugatory  and  delusive." 

********** 

"  And,  though  the  importance  of  the  consular  functions  be  not  so  great  as  to  procure 
to  the  consul's  person  the  inviolability  and  absolute  independence  enjoyed  by  public  minis 
ters,  yet,  being  under  the  peculiar  protection  of  the  sovereign  who  employs  him,  and  in 
trusted  with  the  care  of  his  concerns,  if  he  commits  any  crime,  the  respect  due  to  his 
master  requires  that  he  should  be  sent  home  to  be  punished." 

For  the  privileges  of  consuls  with  reference  to  commerce,  their  police 
power  over  sailors  and  ships,  their  jurisdiction  in  certain  cases  over  a 
whole  country  for  the  protection  of  trade,  I  refer  to  the  full  discussion 
in  2  Phill.,  170,  &c. 

I  can  plainly  perceive,  as  was  remarked  in  the  Senate,  that  the  rev 
enue  from  our  commerce  with  Turkey,  Portugal,  the  Papal  States,  Den 
mark,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Switzerland,  Japan,  and  the  Central  Ameri 
can  republics,  is  so  insignificant  that  the  expense  of  maintaining  missions 
at  their  respective  Courts  becomes  an  unnecessary  burden  on  the  Treasury. 
In  times  like  these,  when  the  strictest  economy  is  necessary,  when  we  are 


156  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

overtaxing  ourselves  to  create  enough  revenue  to  meet  our  expenses,  we 
had  better  suppress  all  sinecure  missions  than  run  into  other  sinecures, 
like  these  missions  to  Hayti  and  Liberia,  because  of  the  precedents 
quoted. 

I  take  it  for  granted,  then,  that  consuls  can  attend  to  all  our  affairs  in 
those  countries  ;  and  again  I  ask,  why  do  we  not  suppress  these  sinecure 
missions  instead  of  creating  two  new  ones — one  in  Hayti,  where  Europe 
has  none  but  consuls  general,  at  the  same  time  clothed  with  the  title  of 
charge  or  diplomatic  agent,  and  another  in  Liberia,  where  Europe  has 
none  but  consuls  and  vice-consuls  ? 

According  to  the  Gothas  Almanac,  Hayti  has  the  following  agents  from 
the  countries  trading  with  it :  England,  consul  general  and  charge  d'af 
faires  ;  France,  same  ;  Spain,  consul  general ;  Portugal,  consul  general ; 
and  Holland,  consul  general.  The  United  States,  Belgium,  Bremen, 
Denmark,  Hamburg,  Hanover,  the  Italian  kingdom,  Oldenburg,  Meck- 
lenburg-Schwerin,  Austria,  Prussia,  and  Sweden  and  Norway  have  only 
consuls. 

Hayti  returned  to  England  one  minister  resident,  one  secretary  of 
legation,  and  three  consuls  ;  to  France  the  same  thing ;  to  Austria,  Bel 
gium,  Denmark,  and  Hamburg,  one  consul  each. 

Now  we  come  back  to  the  question,  what  is  the  need  of  a  minister 
resident  at  Hayti ;  and  why  do  we  want  another  in  return  ?  Is  commerce 
your  object?  You  can  get  that  by  the  mode  proposed  in  my  amendment. 
I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  whether  he  expects  a  minister  in 
return  ?  Of  course  he  does. 

Mr.  GOOCH.  My  proposition  is  to  put  Hayti  upon  the  same  footing 
with  other  independent  nations,  and  to  receive  ministers  from  her,  as  Eng 
land  and  France  and  other  continental  Powers  receive  them. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  intends  to  let  Hayti 
and  Liberia  send  as  ministers  whomsoever  they  please  to  this  country. 
If  they  send  negro  ministers  to  Washington  City,  the  gentleman  will  say 
they  shall  be  welcomed  as  ministers,  and  have  all  the  rights  of  Lord  Lyons 
and  Count  Mercier.  They  cannot  send  any  one  else  than  negroes  as  rep 
resentatives  of  their  nations.  Indeed,  a  negro,  by  the  Constitution  of 
Hayti,  is  the  only  person  who  can  hold  such  an  office.  That  Constitution 
debars  whites  from  office. 

Mr.  FESSENDEN.  What  objection  can  the  gentleman  have  to  such  a 
representative  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  Objection  ?  Gracious  heavens  !  what  innocency !  Objec 
tion  to  receiving  a  black  man  on  an  equality  with  the  white  men  of  this 
country  ?  Every  objection  which  instinct,  race,  prejudice,  and  institutions 
make.  I  have  been  taught  in  the  history  of  this  country  that  these  Com 
monwealths  and  this  Union  were  made  for  white  men ;  that  this  Govern 
ment  is  a  Government  of  white  men  ;  that  the  men  who  made  it  never  in 
tended,  by  any  thing  they  did,  to  place  the  black  race  on  an  equality  with 
the  white.  The  reasons  for  these  wise  precautions  I  have  not  now  the 
time  to  discuss.  They  are  climatic,  ethnological,  economical,  and  social. 
It  may  be,  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  intend  to  carry  out  their 
schemes  of  emancipation  to  that  extent  they  will  raise  the  blacks  to  an 
equality  in  every  respect  with  the  white  men  of  this  country.  I  suppose 


FOREIGN  AFFAIRS.  157 

they  want  to  approach  that  object  by  having  a  colored  representative  in 
the  capitol  at  Washington.  Is  not  that  your  object?  I  charge  that  it  is. 
Do  you  not  want  to  begin  by  giving  national  equality  to  the  black  repub 
lics?  After  having  obtained  the  equality  of  black  nations  with  white  na 
tions,  do  you  not  propose  to  carry  the  equality  a  little  further,  and  so 
make  individual,  political,  and  social  equality? 

Mr.  FESSENDEN.  The  gentleman  can  draw  such  inferences  as  he 
pleases  ;  but  he  will  state  his  own  reasons,  and  not  ours. 

Mr.  Cox.  If  I  draw  my  own  inferences,  I  might  draw  a  great  many 
about  the  gentleman  from  Maine.  I  recollect  that  the  gentleman  stated 
that  he  would  rather  that  the  Union  should  not  be  restored  thau  that  sla 
very  should  continue.  I  draw  some  remarkable  inferences  from  such  lan 
guage.  He  is,  therefore,  consistent  and  logical  in  trying  to  get  at  black 
equality.  If  slavery  is  not  abolished,  he  is  a  disunionist.  He  is  for  its 
abolition,  and  hence  favors  this  plan  of  equality,  to  welcome  the  enfran 
chised  when  the  scheme  is  fully  ripe. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  The  other  day,  when  we  had  a  bill  before 
the  House  for  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  rebels,  I  offered  an  amend 
ment  for  their  colonization,  against  which  the  gentleman  voted. 

Mr.  Cox.     Yes,  I  did. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  That  looks  as  if  the  gentleman  wanted  to 
keep  the  negroes  here  on  an  equality  with  us.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  laughs,  and  others  laugh  around  him.  It 
is  only  the  crackling  of  thorns  under  a  pot.  There  is  no  inconsistency  in 
my  proposition.  I  voted  against  the  proposition  to  colonize  the  negroes, 
not  because  I  did  not  believe,  if  this  emancipation  took  place,  the  emanci 
pated  slaves  would  not  be  better  apart  from  the  whites,  and  better  out  of 
the  country  ;  but  because  I  am  not  prepared,  in  view  of  the  great  expense 
which  such  a  proposition  would  incur,  to  add  now  to  our  present  heavy 
taxation. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  My  amendment  proposes  that  the  negroes 
should  be  apprenticed,  and  that  the  receipts  should  go  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  their  removal. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  know  that  idea  was  ingrafted  as  an  amendment  to  some 
other  wild  proposition  ;  but  it  was  one  of  those  delusive,  Utopian  schemes 
for  Federal  supervision  over  a  system  of  labor,  which,  I  thought,  did  not 
come  from  the  practical  good  sense  which  distinguishes  the  gentleman 
from  Missouri,  and  the  distinguished  family  from  which  he  springs. 
[Laughter.]  But  why  does  the  gentleman  come  forward  to  lecture  me 
for  not  voting  for  his  bill  ?  Why  does  he  not  turn  round  and  lecture  some 
of  his  confreres  upon  the  other  side  of  the  House  ?  Let  him  secure  a  ma 
jority  of  his  own  friends  first  in  favor  of  his  proposition,  and  then  he  can 
appeal  to  us. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  The  gentleman  will  allow  me  to  say  that  a 
majority  upon  this  side  of  the  House  voted  for  it.  Fifty-odd  Republican 
members  voted  for  it,  which  covers  more  than  a  majority  of  the  Republi 
cans  who  voted. 

Mr.  Cox.  Why  do  you  not  lecture  those  of  them  who  did  not  vote 
for  it? 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  I  have  been  lecturing  them  all  winter. 
[Laughter.] 


158  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  afraid  that  my  friend  is  too  good-humored.  He 
ought  to  use  something  in  his  lecturing  beside  mere  easy  talk.  A  little 
of  the  lash  might  do  some  of  his  party  friends  good.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  The  use  of  the  lash  has  almost  gone  out 
even  with  the  negroes.  It  may  still  be  retained  upon  that  side  of  the 
House.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Cox.  No,  sir,  it  is  not.  The  gentleman  can  see  how  perfectly 
free  and  easy  we  are  over  here.  [Renewed  laughter.]  There  is  no  sort 
of  coercion  or  compulsion  about  us.  Now,  I  want  to  say  to  my  friend 
from  Missouri  just  this  about  his  propositions :  they  emanate,  I  know, 
from  the  very  best  of  motives.  He  wants  the  negroes  transported  as  soon 
as  they  are  freed,  but  he  is  in  a  minority  in  his  party. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.     It  does  not  appear  so. 

Mr.  Cox.  He  is  in  a  minority  among  those  who  control  his  party. 
The  men  who  control  our  legislation  here  are  those  who  say  that  the 
negro,  if  he  is  born  here,  has  the  same  right  to  live  in  America  as  the 
white  man  has  ;  that  he  is  entitled  to  freedom  in  locomotion  and  emigra 
tion  ;  that  you  cannot  force  him  out  of  the  land  of  his  birth,  and  that  it  is 
his  inalienable  right  to  be  free.  That  is  your  language ;  that  is  your 
philosophy  ;  and  you  yourself,  sir.  do. not  propose,  in  your  own  bill,  any 
coercion  of  the  blacks  to  make  them  go  out  of  the  country.  Indeed,  your 
bill  repudiates  compulsion.  You  cannot  compel. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  I  am  so  thoroughly  a  democrat,  and  have 
such  confidence  in  the  people,  that  I  believe  that  when  you  present  to  any 
people  that  which  is  for  their  best  interests,  they  will  adopt  it.  I  do  not 
believe,  as  the  gentleman  and  some  others  seem  to,  that  these  people  have 
not  sense  enough  to  do  what  is  for  their  interest.  I  believe  that  negroes 
understand  what  is  good  for  them  as  well  as  other  persons  do. 

Mr.  Cox.  If  these  negroes  will  not  go  voluntarily,  will  you  make 
them  go  after  you  free  them  ? 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  have  not  the 
least  hesitation  in  saying  that  I  would  be  in  favor  of  deporting  these  slaves 
when  emancipated. 

Mr.  Cox.  And  that  is  your  idea  of  the  God-given  right  of  liberty,  is 
it?  Oh! 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  Yes,  sir ;  I  would  give  them  the  right  of 
liberty  where  they  can  enjoy  real  liberty,  and  not  where,  as  in  both  the' 
slave  and  the  free  States,  they  enjoy  no  liberty  and  nothing  that  makes 
liberty  sweet  to  man.  I  go  for  giving  them  a  country  and  a  home,  and 
complete  liberty  in  that  country,  where  they  will  be  superior  to  any  other 
race. 

Mr.  Cox.  Well,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  good  sense  in  that.  The 
free  blacks  ought  to  be  transported  from  this  country  ;  as  Jefferson  said, 
when  free,  they  are  better  away  from  the  whites. 

Mr.  BLAIR,  of  Missouri.  I  am  sorry  the  gentleman  did  not  vote  with 
me,  and  show  the  same  sort  of  good  sense  and  consistency. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  perfectly  consistent,  sir,  but  I  never  will  vote  for 
schemes  like  that  of  the  gentleman,  which  proposes  to  create  more  free 
negroes,  when  we  cannot  as  yet  send  off  the  free  negroes  we  have ;  and 
because  1  believe  that,  in  spite  of  every  thing  that  he  can  do,  it  will  entail 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  159 

an  expense  that  no  people  can  meet,  and  that  our  people  now  cannot  meet. 
I  am  with  the  gentleman  in  desiring  to  send  the  freed  black  men  out  of 
the  country,  or  at  least  in  preventing  any  more  from  coming  into  my  own 
State.  The  State  of  Indiana  excludes  them,  and  I  believe  has,  like  the 
State  of  Illinois,  a  colonization  fund  to  pay  their  way  out  of  the  country. 
I  wish'the  State  of  Ohio  had  the  same  thing,  and  then,  instead  of  the  cen 
sus  showing  in  Ohio  an  increase  in  the  ratio  of  the  free  colored  population 
of  our  State  over  the  whites,  it  would  show  a  decrease  in  proportion  to 
the  white  race,  as  is  the  case  in  Indiana  and  Illinois. 

Mr.  JULIAN.  In  the  State  of  Indiana  the  black  law  is  notoriously  a 
dead  letter  upon  our  statute-book. 

Mr.  HOLMAN.  The  constitutional  provision,  and  the  law  made  in 
pursuance  of  it  prohibiting  the  immigration  of  free  negroes  into  Indiana, 
may  be  inoperative  in  that  part  of  the  State  which  my  colleague  repre 
sents,  but  I  am  very  sure  that  in  that  portion  of  the  State  which  borders 
upon  Kentucky  the  people  have  deemed  it  necessary,  as  a  measure  of 
policy,  and  to  protect  their  own  internal  interests,  to  enforce  the  law. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  think  I  must  go  on  with  my  remarks.  I  have  been  led 
away  altogether  from  the  course  which  I  had  marked  out  for  myself  in 
regard  to  this  bill.  I  intended  to  show  the  state  of  society  in  Hayti ; 
something  of  its  commerce ;  something  of  the  condition  of  its  Govern 
ment,  that  we  might  see  whether  there  is  any  propriety  in  our  having  a 
diplomatic  functionary  at  that  place,  and  having  one  from  them  in  return. 
I  shall,  however,  take  an  early  opportunity  of  showing  to  this  House  ex 
actly  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  effect  of  these  schemes  of  emancipation 
and  colonization,  especially  in  reference  to  the  free  negroes  and  their  im 
migration  into  my  own  State.  I  made  an  issue  the  other  day  with  my 
colleague  [Mr.  BINGHAM]  on  this  subject,  and  I  intend  to  pursue  that 
issue,  and  to  see  whether  or  not  the  State  of  Ohio  has  the  right,  and  should 
exercise  it,  to  keep  out  these  hordes  of  blacks  that  are  now  coming  over 
into  Ohio.  I  know  we  cannot  send  them  to  Hayti.  They  will  not  go 
there.  The  idea  of  the  gentleman  from  Missouri  is  utterly  chimerical. 
They  claim  the  same  right  in  this  country  that  he  has.  In  the  meetings 
at  which  they  have  assembled  in  this  city,  the  proposition  to  go  to  Hayti 
was  made  to  them,  and  they  voted  it  down.  It  was  so  in  Boston — 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  Will  my  colleague  have  the  kindness  to  let  me  sug 
gest  here,  as  he  proposes  to  make  an  issue  with  me  in  our  State — 

Mr.  Cox.     I  joined  issue  with  the  gentleman  the  other  day. 

Mr.  BINGHAM.  I  did  not  know  that  we  had  joined  issue  so  very 
formally,  but  will  he  have  the  kindness  to  let  me  know  how  he  proposes 
to  dispose  of  these  free  negroes  ?  He  says  he  will  not  favor  their  compul 
sory  emigration  to  Liberia  :  where  will  he  put  them  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  said  not  a  word  about  compulsory  emigration  to  Liberia. 
I  would  put  them  where  the  Constitution  puts  them.  But  one  thing  I  will 
not  do — iavor  the  equality  of  blacks  with  whites,  either  individually  or 
nationally. 

A  few  words  before  I  conclude  as  to  the  Government  of  Hayti.  The 
present  state  of  Haytien  society  is  divided  into  two  political  parties  very 
distinct  from  each  other — that  of  the  blacks  or  pure  negroes,  and  that  of 
the  mulattoes  or  mixed  race.  The  former  have  the  power,  but  are  very 


160  EIGHT   TEAKS    IN   CONGKESS. 

ignorant ;  the  latter  embrace  all  the  educated  classes,  but  are  envied  and 
suspected  by  the  pure  blacks,  and  therefore  kept  by  them  under  a  species 
of  yoke  similar  to  that  of  the  "  rayas  "  in  Turkey.  As  an  illustration  of 
the  extreme  ignorance  of  the  blacks,  I  will  quote  the  words  of  President 
Pierrot,  in  1845,  who  pretended  that  all  Haytiens  who,  like  himself, 
could  not  read,  were  to  be  considered  blacks,  and  all  those  that  rea*d  were 
to  be  deemed  mixed.  The  Haytien  black  achieved  his  independence  ;  but 
as  he  has  always  present  to  his  mind  the  fact  that  he  was  a  slave  to  the 
white,  and  has  suffered  under  him,  he  naturally  hates  him,  and  all  that 
have  any  connection  with  him.  Hence  the  envy  and  suspicion  he  enter 
tains  against  the  mulattoes,  whom  he  supposes  to  be  the  friends  of  the 
white,  and  to  be  plotting  with  him  to  bring  the  black  back  to  slavery.  He 
has  a  decided  reluctance  to  every  kind  of  improvement  proposed  by  the 
white  or  mulatto,  and  he  will  not  educate  himself.  The  pure  blacks  are 
in  the  proportion  of  nine  to  one,  and  rule  all.  The  administration  of  the 
Government  is  ignorant,  improvident,  engaged  in  nothing  but  uniforms 
and  parade,  inexplicable  dumb  shows,  and  "  negro  shows  "  at  that.  They 
have  an  army  of  forty  thousand  strong,  in  rags,  and  scarcely  one-third 
armed,  without  any  kind  of  discipline,  almost  without  officers,  and  whose 
pay,  small  as  it  is,  is  neglected.  They  are  the  ebony  counterpart  of  Fal- 
staff's  company  when  he  used  the  king's  press  so  damnably.  They  have 
a  treasury,  kept  up  by  paper  money,  the  nominal  value  of  which,  issued 
for  one  dollar,  or  gourde,  has  fallen  to  twelve  cents  !  They  have  an  ex 
cessive  tariff  on  both  imports  and  exports,  from  which  the  State  derives 
its  revenue.  There  is  great  corruption  in  all  the  departments  of  their 
Government. 

Several  MEMBERS.  They  are  on  an  equality  with  this  Government 
in  that. 

Mr.  Cox.  That  remark  might  well  apply  to  one  Department ;  and 
if  Hayti  instead  of  Russia  had  been  selected  by  a  former  Cabinet  officer 
for  his  dishonorable  retiracy,  there  would,  I  admit,  be  a  sort  of  fitness  of 
things.  [Laughter.] 

Thus  I  have  recounted  in  a  desultory  way — for  I  did  not  expect  Hayti 
in  to-day — the  condition  of  one  of  the  finest  countries  in  the  world,  which, 
had  it  been  well  administered,  would  really  deserve  its  old  name,  "  the 
Queen  of  the  Antilles."  This  state  of  things  is  due  to  the  fact  that,  for 
the  last  seventy  years  of  their  independence,  the  blacks  have  been  con 
fined  to  themselves,  and  have  declined  all  improvement  or  instruction,  either 
in  law  or  economy.  During  this  trial  of  seventy  years  the  blacks  have 
proved  that  they  are  not  fit  for  government,  nor  competent  for  independ 
ence.  The  conduct  of  Spain,  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Massa 
chusetts  [Mr.  GOOCH],  proves  this.  To  admit  such  a  nation  on  an  equal 
ity  with  this  Republic,  is  as  much  of  a  caricature  on  international  comity  as 
the  admission  of  a  Port  Royal  contraband  to  a  seat  in  Congress.  It  is  an 
indisputable  fact  that  Hayti,  with  a  population  of  over  half  a  million,  and 
one  of  the  finest  soils  on  the  earth,  productive  of  the  rarest  articles,  pos 
sessed  of  rich  mines  of  gold,  mercury,  iron,  and  coal — an  Eldorado — has 
for  the  past  seventy  years  remained  an  unprofitable  spot  because  of  the 
inability  of  its  people  to  raise  themselves  above  the  corruption,  laziness, 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  161 

improvidence,   ignorance,  and  vice  which  seem  to  follow  the  undirected 
African  wherever  he  goes. 

It  is  said  that  England  and  France  receive  charges  from  Hayti  and 
Liberia.  The  Exeter  Hall  abolitionists  have  perhaps  made  it  possible  in 
London  to  have  the  negro  recognized  at  Court ;  but  I  understand  that  ex 
cept  on  Court  days,  when  he  is  presented  in  that  solemn  scene  of  mockery, 
he  is  isolated  and  slighted,  except  it  may  be  in  the  saloons  of  the  Duchess 
of  Sutherland  or  some  other  innamorata  of  the  African.  In  Paris  we 
know  that  any  show  from  a  puppet  to  a  prince  is  a  sensation  ;  and  besides, 
there  was  some  reason  why  France  should  take  Hayti  under  her  pro 
tective  wing.  But  unless  gentlemen  here  propose  equality,  unless  they 
intend  abolition  entire,  there  is  nothing  logical  in  their  pressing  this  bill. 
So  long  as  they  suffer  slaveholders  and  slave  States  to  have  or  take  any 
part  in  this  Union,  it  is  an  insult  to  bring  into  the  Federal  metropolis  this 
black  minister  proposed  by  the  gentlemen.  What  is  it  for,  unless  it  be  to 
outrage  the  prejudices  of  the  whites  of  this  country,  and  to  show  how 
audaciously  the  abolitionists  can  behave  ?  How  fine  it  will  look,  after 
emancipating  the  slaves  in  this  District,  to  welcome  here  at  the  White 
House  an  African,  full-blooded,  all  gilded  and  belaced,  dressed  in  court 
style,  with  wig  and  sword  and  tights  and  shoe-buckles  and  ribbons  and 
spangles  and  many  other  adornments  which  African  vanity  will  suggest ! 
How  suggestive  of  fun  to  our  good-humored,  joke-cracking  Executive  ! 
With  what  admiring  awe  will  the  contrabands  approach  this  ebony  demi 
god  !  while  all  decent  and  sensible  white  people  will  laugh  the  silly  and 
ridiculous  ceremony  to  scorn. 


TREXT    AFFAIR. 

SEIZURE    OP    SOUTHERN  AMBASSADORS — RIGHT    OF    SEARCH    IN    TIME    OP   WAR — ENGLISH    AND 

AMERICAN   DOCTRINE. 

ON  the  17th  of  December,  1861,  I  took  occasion,  in  reporting  a  bill 
for  the  relief  of  the  owners  of  the  British  ship  "  Perthshire,"  to  discuss 
the  matters  involved  in  the  Trent  affair.  A  few  extracts  from  the  debate 
will  furnish  the  preface  to  the  more  elaborate  discussion  of  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  which  follows : 

I  would  not  to-day  bring  in  this  bill,  if  I  believed  that  any  inference 
would  be  drawn  from  its  passage  that  it  was  dictated  by  any  concession 
to  British  arrogance.  I  would  not  ask  this  House  even  to  do  a  matter  of 
right  under  a  threat  from  Great  Britain,  or  under  the  dictation  of  her 
arrogance  or  passion ;  but  in  order  that  we  may  demand  our  rights  of 
Great  Britain,  we  should  always  be  ready  to  do  right  toward  her.  In  the 
jealous  defence  of  our  maritime  rights  our  officers  may  exceed  their  duty. 
The  moment  that  is  ascertained,  as  it  is  in  this  instance,  the  Government 
will  take  pride  in  according  satisfaction.  Our  Government  must  do  its 
duty  in  order  to  assert  its  rights.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  action  of  this 
House,  at  least  toward  foreign  poAvers,  will  show  a  wise  and  just  con- 
11 


1C2  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

ciliation  without  any  timid  or  time-serving  submission.  While  we  would 
not  yield  one  inch  to  any  servile  fear  or  ungenerous  compulsion,  such  as 
is  threatened  by  the  late  news  from  England,  it  is  becoming  the  dignity 
of  the  Republic  promptly  to  remedy  grievances.  Thus  we  are  triply 
armed  to  demand  prerogatives  belonging  to  our  nationality,  both  at  home 
and  abroad. 

Great  Britain  should,  and  I  trust  will,  meet  us  in  this  spirit,  when  we 
demand  of  her  why  it  is  that  she  has  afforded  an  asylum  in  Southampton 
harbor  to  the  Nashville.  Without  nationality,  without  even  the  pretence 
of  a  barbarous  privateering  commission  ;  and  after  bearing  an  envoy  of 
the  rebels  (Colonel  Peyton)  to  Great  Britain  ;  after  overhauling  the  Har 
vey  Birch  upon  the  high  seas,  almost  within  sight  of  the  shores  of  Eng 
land  ;  after  dragging  down  the  stars  and  stripes  from  that  ship,  and 
raising  instead  that  strange  banner  of  triple-striped  infamy ;  after  ironing 
her  crew,  and  with  the  red  hand  of  the  bold  buccaneer  burning  her  to  the 
water's  edge  ;  after  all  this,  the  Nashville  has  found  a  hospitable  asylum 
in  the  harbor  of  Southampton,  to  be  refitted  for  another  outrage  with  war 
like  armaments  from  English  storehouses  !  We  have  a  right  to  demand 
how  it  is  that  she  is  permitted  thus  to  refit.  We  have  a  right  to  demand 
whether  that  is  in  accordance  writh  her  much-boasted  but  ill-disguised 
neutrality.  We  have  a  right  to  know,  after  Great  Britain  has  assumed 
her  position  of  neutrality,  and  assumed  it  voluntarily  and  in  defiance  of 
our  protest,  how  it  is  that,  consistently  with  that  assumption,  she  can 
give  aid  and  comfort  and  warlike  stores  to  this  ship  Nashville,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  enabling  her  again  to  make  roving  inroads  upon  our  com 
merce  ?  I  think,  so  far  as  I  know  anything  of  the  case  of  the  Nashville, 
that  the  English  people,  if  not  the  English  Government,  have  acted  as 
accessories  after  the  fact  to  the  piracy  committed  upon  our  commerce. 
She  cannot  complain,  then,  that  in  the  midst  of  the  great  national  peril 
that  overshadows  us,  and  while  the  public  nerve  is  so  acutely  sensitive  to 
the  very  least  indignity — she  cannot  complain  that  we,  in  our  great  trib 
ulation,  should  ask  of  her  to  do  right  as  a  neutral,  since  she  has  assumed 
that  position.  In  connection  with  the  case  that  I  have  presented  to  the 
House,  I  will  now,  for  a  very  few  moments  only,  call  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  the  position  which  our  Government  assumes  with  reference  to 
the  case  of  the  Trent.  I  say  our  Government  assumes  a  position.  True, 
the  President  has  in  his  message  preserved  a  discreet  reticence  with  refer 
ence  to  it ;  but  this  House  in  the  first  hours  of  its  session,  and  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Navy  in  his  report,  have  justified  Captain  Wilkes  for  his 
performance.  Honors  have  been  showered  on  him.  His  heroism  has 
been  lauded.  I  assume  that  our  Government,  by  not  disapproving,  at 
least  has  sanctioned  his  conduct  on  the  highest  principles  of  international 
justice. 

The  other  day,  at  the  beginning  of  this  session,  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  LOVEJOY]  introduced  his  resolution  approving  the  conduct 
of  Captain  Wilkes.  I  voted  for  that  resolution.  I  approve  of  that  action 
of  Commodore  Wilkes,  because  it  was  founded  on  international  right. 
This  matter  came  again  before  the  House  yesterday ;  and  lo  !  in  the  face 
of  the  morning  news  which  echoed  with  the  roar  of  the  English  lion,  there 
seemed  to  be  a  different  spirit  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  !  I  hope 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  163 

that  the  House  did  not  intend  on  yesterday  to  express  an  opinion  adverse 
to  our  rights  in  the  case  of  the  Trent,  by  referring  the  matter  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  I  believe  that,  when  the  matter  is  discussed 
by  that  committee  and  reported  to  the  House,  the  committee  and  the 
House  will  stand  together  by  our  rights  in  the  premises.  But  I  was 
reluctant  to  vote  for  its  reference  ;  not  because  the  members  of  that  com 
mittee  will  not  examine  it  fully  and  do  their  duty  to  the  country,  but 
because  my  own  opinion  was  foregone  and  had  been  expressed  en  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois.  The  more  I  examine  it,  the 
more  I  am  satisfied  that,  in  regard  to  this  question,  this  Government 
stands  in  a  position  to  defend  herself  in  any  forum  before  the  world. 

Mr.  COLFAX.  I  desire  to  say  to  my  friend  from  Ohio,  that  in  common 
with  many  other  members,  I  voted  yesterday  for  the  reference  of  the 
resolution  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  because  I  thought  that, 
standing  as  we  may  probably  be  on  the  brink  of  war,  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  American  Congress  to  send  out  whatever  it  declared  gravely,  delib 
erately,  solemnly,  as  the  emanation  of  a  standing  committee,  and  not  as 
the  mere  impulse  of  a  solitary  member. 

Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  be  kind 
enough  to  explain  why  those  considerations  which  he  urges  with  such  force 
just  now,  did  not  occur  to  him  on  the  first  day  of  the  session,  when  he 
proposed  to  imprison  one  of  those  men  ? 

Mr.  COLFAX.     I  will  do  so  with  great  pleasure. 

Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM.  He  had  not  heard  from  England  at  the  time, 
perad  vent  ure. 

Mr.  COLFAX.  My  resolution  in  reference  to  Mr.  Mason  was  in  refer 
ence  to  a  man  who  had  taken  an  oath  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States 
to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  country,  and  had  violated  it.  He  was 
not  only  a  traitor,  but  he  had  violated  his  oath.  He  was  in  our  hands, 
and  I  proposed  to  imprison  him  and  subject  him  to  treatment  correspond 
ing  with  that  shown  to  Colonel  Corcoran.  When  we  come  to  deal  as  a 
nation  with  foreign  nations,  that  is,  of  course,  a  different  matter. 

Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  whether 
there  is  to-day  any  less  violation  of  their  oaths  on  the  part  of  Mason  and 
Slidell  than  there  was  the  first  day  of  the  session  ?  Are  they  less  traitors 
now  than  they  were  then  ?  If  so,  what  makes  the  difference  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     I  must  arrest  this  interlocutory  debate. 

Mr.  COLFAX.  I  am  still  in  favor  of  meting  out  the  same  treatment 
to  them  as  Colonel  Corcoran  receives. 

Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM.  These  men  will  be  surrendered  before  three 
months  in  the  face  of  a  threat.  I  make  that  prediction  here  to-day. 

Mr.  COLFAX.     I  disbelieve  it. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  hope  that  the  prediction  of  my  colleague  will  never  be 
fulfilled.  I  have  some  faith  in  the  sagacity  of  our  Secretary  of  State,  too 
much  faith  in  the  honor  of  the  people  of  the  country,  to  believe  that  they 
will  ever  permit  their  Government,  in  a  case  of  clear  right,  to  so  dishonor 
them.  The  honor  of  a  nation  is  its  credit ;  its  credit  is  its  commerce  ;  its 
commerce  is  its  cash  ;  and  its  cash  brings  with  it  the  comforts  and  refine 
ments  of  civilization.  Where  you  touch  the  cash,  you  have  a  powerful 
argument  with  any  nation.  The  pecuniary  argument  is,  with  the  majority, 


164  EIGHT   YEARS   IN"   CONGRESS. 

generally  stronger  than  the  moral  argument.  When  moral  influences 
combine  with  pecuniary,  they  are  irresistible*  The  people  of  the  country, 
however,  will  stand,  as  a  point  of  honor,  by  the  rights  to  which  they  are 
entitled  on  land  or  sea.  They  will  look  with  jealousy  on  anything  that 
has  a  tendency  toward  impairing  their  nationality,  either  at  home  or 
abroad.  When  they  fail  in  this,  they  deserve  expatriation  from  this  the 
cushioned  part  of  God's  footstool  given  in  high  trust  to  their  keeping. 

I  was  about  to  state  the  proposition  on  which  I  believe  the  Govern 
ment  can  plant  itself  in  this  matter.  I  do  not  propose  now  to  argue  it 
elaborately.  I  will  cite  but  few  authorities.  The  public  newspapers  have 
been  teeming  with  authorities,  some  relevant  and  some  irrelevant. 

Mr.  LOVEJOY.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  My  point  is,  that  the 
remarks  of  the  gentleman  are  irrelevant  to  the  question  before  the  House, 
which  is  a  question  as  to  the  detention  of  the  Perthshire. 

Mr.  Cox.  If  I  could  only  put  the  "  African  "  into  the  question,  no 
doubt  it  would  be  relevant.  I  propose  to  show  a  direct  connection  between 
our  according  the  rights  that  are  due  to  Great  Britain  and  our  demanding 
our  own  rights  in  return.  Therefore  my  argument  is  logical  and  per 
tinent. 

The  SPEAKER.  The  Chair  decides  that  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  is 
in  order. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  show  the  gentleman  immediately  that  I  am  in  order. 
I  am  going  to  make  the  connection  [laughter],  and  will  do  it  without 
the  aid  of  the  negro.  The  principle  on  which  we  will  accord  justice  to 
England,  and  on  which  we  shall  demand  justice  from  England,  is  to 
demand  our  rights  and  do  our  duty  in  return.  Our  justification  in  the 
case  of  the  Trent  is,  that  her  act  was  one  of  hostility  in  bearing  these 
ambassadors ;  and  hostility,  whether  it  consist  in  carrying  despatches, 
envoys,  or  other  and  worse  than  contraband,  in  a  neutral  merchant  ship. 

It  will  not  do  to  answer  that  no  case  like  this  has  ever  been  adjudged. 
Nearly  all  the  Spanish- American  ambassadors,  during  the  revolutions  of 
their  States,  that  have  been  sent  between  this  continent  and  Europe,  have 
been  sent  either  in  British  or  American  ships,  and  have  never  been  inter 
fered  with.  P^uropean  ambassadors  passing  from  nation  to  nation  have, 
by  reason  of  the  geographical  relations  of  the  countries,  never  been  dis 
turbed  ;  and  hence  specific  cases  of  this  nature  have  not  arisen  hitherto. 

The  principle  which  regulates  these  international  questions  is  this  :  it 
has  been  decided  that  a  neutral  ship  bearing  despatches  in  time  of  war 
shall  be  confiscate,  and  if  confiscate  when  bearing  despatches,  a  fortiori, 
if  such  vessel  bears  ambassadors,  who  are  of  far  greater  consequence 
than  despatches.  The  mission  of  ambassadors  is  of  far  more  importance 
than  battalions  of  armed  men  and  whole  cargoes  of  shot,  shell,  guns, 
sabres,  and  other  contraband.  An  ambassador  may  carry  in  himself 
alliances  which  will  give  credit,  raise  loans  and  armies,  and  even  solve 
revolutions.  The  ambassadors  of  this  Government,  in  our  Revolution, 
consummated  alliances  and  made  treaties  and  loans,  which  enabled  us  to 
secure  recognition  and  independence.  Then  there  is  in  this  case  a  stronger 
reason  why  the  vessel  should  be  confiscated  when  she  bears  that  whicli  is 
much  more  important  to  the  enemy  than  despatches.  Our  ambassador 
in  the  Revolution,  Mr.  Laurens,  was  considered  of  so  much  importance 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  165 

by  the  British  Government  that  they  exchanged  him  for  Lord  Cornwallis, 
the  commander-in-chief.  And  so  in  this  case,  these  ambassadors,  recog 
nized  as  sucli  by  the  President  of  their  so-called  Confederate  States  in 
his  message,  are  of  fifty-fold  more  importance  than  merely  articles  con 
traband  of  war. 

Now,  the  right,  in  time  of  war,  of  every  belligerent  ship  to  search  all 
vessels,  except  national  vessels,  for  contraband,  has  never  been  denied. 
The  Queen's  proclamation  proceeded  upon  this  principle.  Hautefeuille 
propounds  this  doctrine.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  recognized  it  in  the 
Santlsima  Trinidad  case  (7  Wheaton,  283). 

"  Two  publicists,  Wheaton  and  Ortolan,  adopting  the  opinion  of  the  English  judges, 
look  upon  the  transport  of  despatches  by  a  neutral  as  an  act  quite  as  grave  as  the  trans 
port  of  troops,  and  as  leading  to  the  confiscation  of  the  neutral  vessel." 

Such  is  the  language  of  Hautefeuille.  Hostile  despatches  are  in  the 
same  category  with  contraband.  (Chitty's  Law  of  Nations,  p.  147; 
PhiUimore,  368,  370  ;  1  Kent,  154  ;  Wheaton,  529.) 

In  the  case  of  the  Orozembo,  which  carried  three  soldiers  and  two 
civilians  in  the  Dutch  service  from  Macao  to  Batavia,  Sir  William  Scott 
held  : 

"  This  is  the  case  of  an  admitted  American  vessel ;  but  the  title  to  restitution  is  im 
pugned  on  the  ground  of  its  having  been  employed,  at  the  time  of  the  capture,  in  the 
service  of  the  enemy,  in  transporting  military  persons,  first  to  Macao,  and  ultimately  to 
Batavia.  That  a  vessel  hired  by  the  enemy  for  the  conveyance  of  military  persons  is  to 
be  considered  as  a  transport  subject  to  condemnation  has  been  in  a  recent  case  held  by 
this  court,  and  on  other  occasions.  What  is  the  number  of  military  persons  that  shall 
constitute  such  a  case  it  may  be  difficult  to  define.  Whether  the  principle  would  apply 
to  them  alone,  I  do  not  feel  it  necessary  to  determine.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  case  in 
which  that  question  has  been  agitated  ;  but  it  appears  to  me,  on  principle,  to  be  but  rea 
sonable  that  whenever  it  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  that  enemy  that  such  persons 
should  be  sent  out  on  the  public  service  at  the  public  expense,  it  should-  afford  equal 
ground  of  forfeiture  against  the  vessel  that  may  be  let  out  for  a  purpose  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  hostile  operations." 

The  same  principle  is  held  in  Hazlett  and  Roache's  Manual  of  Mari 
time  Warfare,  page  293.  It  is  strongly  stated,  in  its  reason  and  princi 
ple,  by  Lord  Stowell  in  the  case  of  the  Maria  (1  Robinson,  340),  as  fol 
lows  : 

"  The  right  of  visiting  and  searching  merchant  ships  upon  the  high  seas,  whatever  be 
the  ships,  whatever  be  the  cargoes,  whatever  be  the  destinations,  is  an  incontestable  right 
of  the  lawfully  commissioned  cruisers  of  a  belligerent  nation."  *  *  *  "  This 
right  is  so  clear  in  principle  that  no  man  can  deny  it  who  admits  the  legality  of  marine 
capture."  *  *  *  "The  right  is  equally  clear  in  practice,  for  practice  is  uni 
form  and  universal  upon  this  subject.  The  many  European  treaties  which  refer  to  this  right, 
refer  to  it  as  preexisting,  and  merely  regulate  the  exercise  of  it.  All  writers  upon  the 
law  of  nations  unanimously  acknowledge  it.  In  short,  no  man  in  the  least  degree  con 
versant  with  subjects  of  this  kind  has  ever,  that  I  know  of,  breathed  a  doubt  upon  it." 

In  the.  case  of  the  Atalanta,  decided  in  1808  (6  Robinson,  440),  the 
learned  judge  said : 

"  Nor  let  it  be  supposed  that  it  is  an  act  of  light  or  casual  importance.  The  conse 
quence  of  such  a  service  is  indefinite — infinitely  beyond  the  effect  of  any  contraband  that 
can  be  conveyed.  The  carrying  even  of  two  cargoes  of  stores  is  necessarily  an  assistance 
of  a  limited  nature ;  but  in  the  transmission  of  despatches  may  be  conveyed  the  entire 
plan  of  a  campaign  that  may  defeat  all  the  projects  of  the  other  belligerent  in  that  quar 
ter  of  the  world." 


166  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

In  a  subsequent  case,  when  the  despatches  were  in  course  of  convey 
ance,  not  from  the  colonies  of  the  enemy,  but  from  a  State  in  comity,  and 
from  the  public  ambassador  of  the  enemy,  residing  in  that  State,  to  his 
own  Government,  Sir  William  Scott  restored  the  vessel's  cargo  on  pay 
ment  of  the  captor's  expenses  ;  thus  holding  the  search  and  capture  justi 
fiable.  In  distinguishing  this  case  from  the  preceding,  he  said : 

"  I  have  before  said  that  persons  discharging  the  functions  of  ambassadors  are,  in  a 
peculiar  manner,  objects  of  the  protection  and  favor  of  the  law  of  nations.  The  limits 
that  are  assigned  to  the  operations  of  war  against  them,  by  Vattcl,  and  other  writers  upon 
these  subjects,  are,  that  you  may  exercise  your  right  of  war  against  them  wherever  the 
character  of  hostility  exists;  you  may  stop  the  ambassador  of  your  enemy  on  his  pas 
sage,"  bc.—The  Caroline,  6  Rob.,  461-468. 

Mr.  Gushing,  in  his  perspicuous  and  able  discussion  of  this  subject, 
maintains  the  principle  by  which  this  question  can  be  determined.  From 
his  abundant  ^  learning  in  international  law  and  his  cogent  logic,  he  de 
duces  the  doctrine  which  I  venture  to  say  no  English  jurist  will  dispute. 
He  says : 

"  The  belligerent  seizures  of  enemy  despatches  and  military  persons,  although  not  pre 
cisely  in  point  as  cases,  are  yet  the  common  corollaries  of  the  same  principle  as  the  arrest 
of  enemy  ambassadors.  To  argue  the  contrary  would  be  to  make  the  law  of  nations  a 
mere  collection  of  detached  facts,  instead  of  a  s}"stem  of  doctrines  and  principle?.  That 
is  not  so.  New  or  doubtful  cases  may  occur,  innovations  may  be  accomplished  or  at 
tempted,  in  the  law  of  nations,  as  in  any  branch  of  municipal  law;  but  principle  remains, 
doctrines  subsist,  general  rules  are  to  be  reasoned  out  for  the  guidance  of  nations  and  of 
msn,  as  well  in  tli3  juridical  relations  of  nations  as  of  men.  And  the  doctrine  here  is 
that  of  contraband  of  war ;  the  principle,  that  of  the  duty  of  all  neutral  Governments  to 
abstain  from  affording  military  aid  to  either  recognized  belligerent ;  and,  in  like  manner,  to 
abstain  from  affording  political  aid  to  the  insurgents  of  another  Government,  save  when 
the  time  may  have  come,  if  it  ever  shall  come,  to  treat  such  insurgents  as  a  new,  inde 
pendent  State,  and  to  do  that  even  at  the  risk  and  responsibility  of  war  with  the  legiti 
mate  Government." 

I  might  add  to  this  the  authority  of  Mr.  Everett ;  and  to  his,  the 
opinion  which  I  received  to-day  in  a  letter  from  a  statesman  now 'in  re 
tirement  [Mr.  Buchanan],  who  has  served  his  country  as  a  diplomatist 
at  two  of  the  leading  courts  of  Europe,  besides  filling  our  office  of  Sec 
retary  of  State  with  consummate  ability.  The  case  of  the  Trent  in  their 
judgment  is  embraced  within  the  reason  of  the  rule  laid  down  for 
patches  and  contraband. 

The  more  this  question  is  examined,  the  more  impregnable  is  our  po 
sition.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  our  previous  diplomacy  to  weaken  it. 
I  had  supposed,  before  examining  the  question,  that  we  were  precluded 
by  our  previous  conduct  from  asserting  this  principle.  But  the  question 
upon  which  this  Government  once  went  to  war  with  Great  Britain  was  in 
resistance  of  her  claim  to  take"  from  our  ships  British  subjects — not  am 
bassadors.  Nor  does  our  denial  of  the  right  of  search,  which  was  in 
volved  in  the  slave  trade,  preclude  us  from  asserting  the  position  I  main 
tain.  That  doctrine  had  reference  exclusively  to  a  time  of  peace.  Thero 
is  nothing,  then,  in  our  diplomatic  record  to  weaken  our  position. 

It  is  enough  now  for  us  that  on  this  ground  we  may  safely  say  to 
England  :  "  Fulfil  your  neutral  obligations.  Until  you  do  so,  you  cannot 
quarrel  with  us  for  the  exercise  of  our  most  indubitable  right.  If  you 
insist  on  belligerent  rights  between  North  and  South,  do  not,  as  a  neutral, 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  167 

help  the  one  belligerent,  to  the  detriment  of  the  other ;  for.  as  Vattel  and 
all  publicists  hold,  this  is  fraud." 

In  this  spirit  alone  can  our  relations  toward  Great  Britain  continue  ami 
cable.  We  will  readily  yield  her  rightful  demands,  as  in  this  case  of  the 
Perthshire.  We  yield  nothing — NOTHING,  to  her  arrogance,  passion,  or 
pride,  when  we  are  clearly  in  the  right.  The  letter  of  General  Jackson 
to  Livingston,  the  original  of  which  was  read  by  the  historian  Bancroft 
at  a  New  T'ork  meeting,  and  applied  by  him  to  disunionists  here,  may  be 
as  appropriately  applied  to  their  sympathizers  abroad  :  "  The  Union  must 
be  preserved  without  blood,  if  this  be  possible  ;  but  it  must  be  preserved 
at  all  hazard,  and  at  any  price."  This  Jacksonian  talk  has  ever  been 
my  rule  of  action  here  :  "  The  Union,  without  bloodshed,  if  possible;  BUT 

THE    UNION  AT  ALL    HAZARD    AND    AT    ANY  PRICE."       So  with    Our    honor 

among  the  nations.  For  it  is  thus,  and  thus  only,  that  in  the  conflict  for 
our  national  existence,  we  will  avoid  entanglement  and  conflict  with  na 
tions  whose  material  interests,  as  they  think,  depend  upon  our  discomfit 
ure,  and  whose  chronic  jealousy  of  our  republican  success  has  led  their 
rulers  to  hail  our  anticipated  disruption  and  ruin  with  delight. 

We  are,  sir,  in  this  country  too  sensitive  of  foreign  opinion.  Mr. 
Seward  said  well  when  he  told  Mr.  Dayton  that  it  was  no  business  of  our 
ambassadors  to  overhear  what  the  foreign  press  or  foreign  ministers  said 
about  us.  Our  duty  was  to  maintain  our  Union  in  its  integrity,  and  our 
position  as  a  leading  Power  among  mankind,  regardless  of  the  machina 
tions  of  rebels  at  home,  and  the  derision  and  hostility  of  kings  and  aristo 
crats  abroad.  I  know  that  we  naturally  dislike  to  have  our  institutions 
misrepresented,  and  our  destruction  predicted.  There  is  much  in  the  old 
Spanish  motto,  "  De  mi  rey,  solo  yo" — no  one  shall  speak  of  our  king 
except  ourselves  ;  no  one  shall  speak  of  our  sovereignty  but  ourselves. 
I  would  that  we  were  more  indifferent  to  the  poisoned  shafts  of  foreign 
malice,  barbed  as  they  are  by  aristocratic  hate  and  pretension.  We  have 
been  freely  scorned  by  nations  whose  moral  standard  is  measured  by  their 
commercial  profit  and  loss,  whose  national  honor  depends  upon  a  cotton 
pod,  whose  philanthropy  has  been  an  intermeddling  Phariseeism,  and  whose 
complacent  neutrality,  so  promptly  assumed,  seems  to  glory  in  the  humil 
iation  of  a  kindred  and  Christian  nation,  without  regret  or  sympathy,  be 
cause  of  its  splendid  illustration  of  commercial  grandeur,  and  its  defiant 
adherence  to  democratic  government. 

Let  us,  sir,  p'ursue  our  duty  to  the  age  and  the  nation  with  unruffled 
composure  and  determined  will.  Heaven  does  not  desert  the  undismayed. 
Even  though  there  may  be  foreign  troubles  impending,  for  us  to  despair 
now  is  to  die-  I  like  the  motto  of  the  old  Romans,  which  I  have,  in  this 
hour  of  our  trial,  often  commended  to  my  constituents,  "  never  to  despair 
of  the  Republic  !  "  They  used  to  write  it  upon  the  lintel  of.  their  doors, 
and  to  emblazon  it  upon  their  temples.  It  was  upon  the  lips  of  the  peo 
ple,  it  was  in  the  mouths  of  their  orators,  "  never  to  despair  of  the  Repub 
lic  ; "  and  when  a  Roman  general,  even  in  the  agony  of  his  defeat,  gave 
out  the  inspiring  words,  "  never  to  despair  of  the  Republic,"  a  Roman 
Senate  voted  him  a  triumphal  entry  within  her  imperial  gates. 

Let  us  fling  aside  the  burden  of  our  national  woe,  lament  nothing  of 
the  irrevocable  past,  dare  all  that  is  just  and  constitutional ;  make  no  cruel 


1G8  EIGHT   TEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

and  disastrous  diversions  from  the  great  object  of  rescuing  our  national 
ity  ;  crush  as  we  would  a  nest  of  adders  those  who  would  impair  its  pro 
portions  as  well  as  those  who  would  turn  us  from  that  object  to  other  and 
ignoble  objects,  involving  fresh  divisions,  broken  armies,  social  revolu 
tions,  servile  insurrections,  perpetual  penalties,  and  eternal  hates  ;  and 
move,  each  and  all,  heart,  soul,  body,  men,  means,  munitions,  intelli 
gence,  and  patriotism,  to  the  grand  and  only  object — the  restoration  of 
our  dismantled  Union.  Thus  feeling  and  thus  acting,  we  may  emerge 
from  this  strife  of  struggling  States ;  and,  like  the  fabled  demigod,  re 
ceive  added  strength  from  our  very  prostration.  If,  sir,  we  observe  the 
rules  of  right  and  honor  in  regulating  our  conduct  abroad,  if  we  observe 
the  object  of  the  war  that  is  now  upon  us,  as  the  President  proclaimed  it 
to  the  people,  as  the  soldiers  of  the  Republic  understand  it,  as  the  House 
resolved  it  in  the  Crittenden  resolutions,  and  as  the  Constitution  and  the 
Union  demand,  we  may  be  assured  that  our  martial  resources,  the  intelli 
gence  and  valor  of  the  masses,  the  very  physical  geography  of  the  coun 
try,  and  God  himself,  will  fight  for  us  against  this  rebellion.  I  believe 
that  Providence  has  marked  upon  the  face  of  this  continent — written  in 
lines  never  to  be  erased — that  this  Union,  as  it  was,  shall  remain,  one  and 
indivisible.  I  believe  in  the  idea  suggested  by  Mr.  Everett,  that  our 
physical  geography  binds  us  and  bars  us  together.  He  said  that  before 
this  Union  could  be  permanently  broken,  the  Alleghanies  must  bow  their 
heads  to  the  ocean,  and  the  Mississippi  and  the  Missouri  roll  back  their 
currents  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  If  we  would  assure  to  posterity  the  po 
litical  Union  we  have  lived  under  so  happily,  we  should  forget  all  thoughts 
of  vengeance,  seize,  with  statesmanlike  sagacity,  upon  the  elements  of 
unity  we  have  even  yet  in  our  unhappy  land,  and  mould  them  in  the  spirit 
of  conciliation  and  wisdom ;  keeping  out  of  these  halls  fatal  and  disas 
trous  discussions  on  inflammatory  ancf  sectional  topics  ;  keeping  the  one 
holy  object  before  us  for  which  the  lives  of  our  brave  soldiers  are  so  freely 
offered,  and  the  millions  of  our  means  are  so  freely  expended.  With  this 
object  nobly  pursued,  God  will  be  with  us,  and  our  arms  will  prevail ! 

We  have  many  elements  of  union.  We  have  as  yet  a  common  blood, 
a  common  language,  a  common  heritage,  a  common  ancestry,  a  common 
history,  a  common  glory,  and  a  common  faith  in  the  same  heavenly 
Father.  Thanks  to  their  courageous  patriotism,  we  have  many  of  the 
noblest  men  from  the  South  still  with  us,  taking  their  part  in  our  legisla 
tion,  and  sharing  the  perils  of  the  Republic.  They  sit  around  me,  with 
eye  unblenched  and  spirit  unbroken.  I  am  ready  to  heed  now,  as  I  have 
always  heeded,  their  counsel,  when  they  tell  us  how  rightly  to  mould  these 
elements  of  union  for  its  restoration.  Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  would  thus 
act  all  may  yet  be  well.  We  may  come  from  this  great  struggle  strength 
ened  and  purified  by  sacrifice,  more  young,  more  exultant,  more  progres 
sive,  and  inspired  with  a  purer  if  not  so  ostentatious  a  consciousness  of 
our  great  destiny,  under  Providence.  I  move  you,  sir,  therefore,  that 
this  bill  I  have  discussed  preliminarily  may  be  put  on  its  passage. 


FOKEIGN  AFFAIRS.  169 


DEMOCRACY  OF  THE  SEA. 

PARIS     CONFERENCES — SECRETARY     MARCY'S     REPLY — RIGHTS     OF     NEUTRALS — THE     LIBEBAL 
AMERICAN   MARITIME   POLICY,    CONTRASTED   WITH   THAT   OF    ENGLAND. 

ON  the  3d  of  March,  1862,  Mr.  Cox  introduced  the  following  joint 
resolution  in  relation  to  maritime  rights  : 

Whereas  international  law  cannot  acquire  any  considerable  extension  except  by  the 
collective  work  of  the  nations  either  assembled  in  congress  by  delegates,  or  by  the  com 
bined  negotiation  of  the  principal  nations :  and  whereas  the  events  connected  with  the 
Trent  affair  have  given  rise  to  the  discussion  of  maritime  rights  by  the  principal  powers 
of  the  world,  all  interested  in  their  authoritative  settlement ;  and  in  that  discussion  the 
friendly  offices  of  the  Emperor  of  France  were  tendered  to  this  Government  for  the  pur 
pose  of  adjusting  the  questions  involved  on  a  clear  and  liberal  basis,  looking  to  the 
amelioration  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  upon  the  sea :  Therefore — 

Be  it  resolved,  &c.  First. — That  the  national  legislature  acknowledges  the  friendly  in 
tentions  and  enlightened  views  of  the  Emperor  of  the  French  in  said  interposition. 

Second. — That  it  favors  the  most  liberal  propositions  with  respect  to  maritime  rights 
and  the  abolition  of  such  usages  as  restrict  the  liberty  of  neutrals  and  multiply  the  causes 
of  dissension  in  the  world,  believing  that  humanity  and  justice  demand  that  the  calamities 
incident  to  war  should  be  strictly  limited  to  the  belligerents  themselves  and  to  those  who 
voluntarily  take  part  with  them ;  but  that  neutrals  abstaining  in  good  faith  from  such 
complicity  ought  to  be  left  to  pursue  their  ordinary  trade  with  either  belligerent. 

Third. — That  the  present  time  is  propitious  for  the  resumption  of  negotiations  to  se 
cure  these  objects,  and  especially  for  the  concurrence  of  the  nations  in  the  benignant  ar 
ticles  of  the  declaration  of  the  Congress  of  Paris  of  the  sixteenth  of  April,  eighteen  hun 
dred  and  fifty-six,  with  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Marcy,  viz : — 1.  Privateering  is 
and  remains  abolished,  provided  that  the  private  property  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  a 
belligerent  on  the  high  seas  shall  be  exempted  from  seizure  by  public  armed  vessels  of  the 
other  belligerent,  except  it  be  contraband.  2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy's  goods, 
with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war.  3.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception ^of  con 
traband  of  war,  are  not  liable  to  capture  under  the  enemy's  flag.  4.  Blockades,  in  order 
to  be  binding,  must  be  effective. 

Fourth. — That  the  people  of  the  United  States  entertain  the  hope  that  the  great  mari 
time  powers  of  France  and  England,  relinquishing  their  present  objections  growing  out 
of  their  ill-advised  recognition  of  our  insurgent  States  as  belligerents,  will  consent  to  the 
propositions  of  the  Paris  conference,  as  the  United  States  have  so  constantly  invited,  and 
as  Mr.  Marcy  proposed  to  the  Government  of  France  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  July, 
eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six ;  with  such  a  liberal  expansion  of  them  that  the  private 
property,  not  contraband,  of  citizens  and  subjects  of  nations  in  collision  should  be  ex 
empted  from  confiscation  equally  in  warfare  waged  on  the  land  and  in  warfare  waged  upon 
the  seas,  which  are  the  common  highways  of  the  nations. 

Fifth.— That  the  efforts  of  the  late  Secretary  Marcy  and  the  present  Secretary  of  State 
to  have  these  maxims  ingrafted  as  fixed  principles  of  international  law  were  eminently 
wise  and  just,  sanctioned  by  our  traditionary  policy,  and  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the 
Republic,  and  to  the  highest  interests  of  peace  and  civilization. 

Sixth. — That,  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  result,  it  would  be  both  courteous  and 
wise  for  our  Government  to  consider  the  proposal  of  the  eminent  publicist  of  France,  M. 
Hautefeuille,  for  a  congress  of  the  maritime  powers,  which,  by  uniting  in  one  body  the 
scattered  forces  of  all  neutrals,  may  secure  to  each  the  respect  and  security  which  they 
cannot  obtain  while  remaining  isolated ;  and  that  thus  they  may  be  enabled  to  maintain, 
as  a  lasting  element  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  maritime  equih'brium  so  long  sought  by 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  so  important  to  the  freedom  of  commerce  and  the  re 
pose  of  the  world. 

On  the  llth  of  April,  1862,  I  advocated  these  resolutions.     Had  our 


170  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN    CONGRESS. 

Government  in  its  intestine  conflict  followed  these  doctrines  upon  the  land, 
it  would  tg-day  stand  upon  a  firmer  ground  of  vantage  than  it  now  enjoys. 
It  would  commend  this  nation  with  emphasis  to  the  attention  of  mankind, 
as  the  advocate  of  liberal  laws,  applicable  to  another  and  less  stable  ele 
ment. 

Mr.  Cox  said :  These  resolutions  reassert  the  American  doctrine  in 
favor  of  neutral  rights,  and  for  the  protection  of  private  property  on  the 
sea.  It  has  been  the  privilege  of  this  Government,  ever  since  its  existence, 
to  champion  the  equality  of  rights  upon  the  sea.  Against  force  and  tra 
dition,  kingcraft  and  aristocracy,  we  have  asserted  by  our  institutions  de 
mocracy  upon  the  earth.  Against  force,  tradition,  and  pretension,  we 
have  asserted  democracy  upon  the  sea.  Not  more  dear  to  the  American 
honor  is  the  equality  of  right  among  our  citizens  under  the  Constitution 
than  is  the  equality  of  right  of  our  ships  and  property  under  our  flag  upon  • 
the  ocean.  There  is  no  time  unseasonable  for  its  assertion.  In  the  midst 
of  our  Revolution  it  was  a  theme  of  interest  to  our  statesmen,  and  in  the 
present  troubles  of  our  country  it  deserves  a  prominent  place  in  our 
thoughts.  In  a  debate  in  the  English  House  of  Commons,  on  the  17th  of 
March,  Mr.  Disraeli  said  that  the  question  of  maritime  rights  was  the 
most  important  question  that  could  engage  the  attention  of  an  English 
legislature,  as  it  affected  seriously  the  naval  strength  of  that  country. 
But  for  the  overwhelming  necessity  created  by  the  rebellion  here,  the 
same  might  be  asserted  with  even  more  force  with  regard  to  our  own 
Government.  Not  only  is  this  true,  because  we  are  a  commercial  people 
— not  only  because  our  commerce  and  our  sea-coast  surpass  those  of  any 
other  nation — but  because  the  relative  strength  of  our  commerce  and  our 
navy  is  such  that  all  our  interests  lie  in  following  the  neutral  line  of  pol 
icy,  and  in  the  protection  of  private  property  from  devastation  by  the  large 
navies  of  the  Old  World. 

The  organs  of  aristocratic  pretension  in  England,  like  the  "  Times,"  speak 
ing  as  well  for  the  Government  as  for  the  Tory  party  led  by  Lord  Derby, 
oppose  any  further  concession  to  neutrals  upon  the  sea.  These  organs, 
while  exulting  over  what  they  are  pleased  to  term  the  disgraceful  failure 
of  democracy  in  America,  evidenced  by  our  rebellion,  condemn  with  Eng 
lish  stubbornness,  and  in  their  isolated  pride,  the  humane  principles  of 
their  own  liberalists  like  Bright,  Cobdeu,  Horsefall,  and  Baring.  They 
affect  to  regard  the  anxiety  of  their  commercial  class  for  a  better  code  of 
maritime  law  as  the  suicide  of  British  naval  supremacy.  They  look  with 
jealousy  and  hate  upon  the  efforts  of  French  statesman  like  Chevalier, 
Hautefeuille,  Thouvenel,  and,  I  may  add,  Napoleon,  for  the  freedom  of 
the  seas.  Indeed,  the  English  Government,  judging  by  the  recent  debates, 
are  ready  to  retrograde  from  their  present  position  taken  at  the  instance 
of  France,  at  the  Paris  Conference,  in  favor  of  neutral  rights.  One  thing 
was  developed  in  those  debates.  England  must  either  creep  back  to  her 
old  selfish  policy,  or  advance  to  our  liberal  doctrine.  To  remain  as  she 
is,  will,  in  case  of  war,  give  her  commerce  to  neutrals  and  her  cruisers  to 
idleness.  With  the  efforts  of  France,  seconded  as  they  are  by  all  other 
Powers  except  England,  and  perhaps  Spain,  the  United  States  are  in 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  171 

closest  sympathy.  My  resolutions  express  that  sympathy.  They  are  the 
answer  of  our  people  to  the  tenders  of  France. 

I  would  especially  commend  these  resolutions  to  the  study  of  members 
who  represent  commercial  cities,  both  upon  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific. 
They  are  not  without  vital  interest  to  the  agricultural  and  mechanical 
interests,  however  remote  from  the  coast.  My  own  district  has  no  direct 
commerce.  But, 

"  Though  inland  far  we  be," 

our  interest,  which  is  agriculture,  is  imbound  with  commerce  by  golden 
bands.  Commerce  does  not  suffer  without  all  interests  suffering.  The 
ship  that  ploughs  its  furrows  upon  the  sea  is  bringing  the  harvest  reward 
to  the  husbandman  who  ploughs  the  soil  in  the  far-off  valleys  of  the 
West. 

The  importance  of  commerce  in  civilization  cannot  be  overrated.  The 
interdependence  of  States  is  the  highest  evidence  of  their  true  independ 
ence.  The  most  nourishing  States  have  attained  their  highest  elevation 
when  closely  connected  with  every  part  of  the  civilized  world  by  success 
ful  commerce.  When  they  lost  their  enterprise  on  the  sea,  they  sank  in 
the  scale  of  nations.  Heaven  has  ordered  through  the  sea  a  mutual  de 
pendence.  Soil,  climate,  and  the  variety  of  the  earth's  productions  knit 
nations  in  mutual  enterprise,  while  they  bind  society  together  in  mutual 
dependence.  All  the  illuminations  of  knowledge,  the  generosities  of  heart, 
and  the  multiplied  means  of  human  happiness,  are  the  results  of  com 
merce.  The  more  free  commerce  is,  the  more  light,  humanity,  and  happi 
ness  the  world  enjoys.  The  less  restricted  that  interdependence,  the 
more  opulent  are  the  blessings  of  the  civilization  it  bestows.  Let  the 
fetters  which  war  imposes  on  commerce  melt  away,  and  with  the  reforms 
already  made  in  the  maritime  law,  we  can  truly  say  that  in  no  season  or 
contingency  shall  civilization  retrograde,  and  the  "  seas  will  but  join  the 
regions  they  divide."  The  liberation  of  commerce  from  its  trammels  has 
been  the  work  of  many  ages.  Especially  has  the  task  of  liberating  neu 
tral  commerce  during  war,  and  of  defining  articles  contraband,  been  the 
object  of  many  commercial  treaties.  The  navigation  laws,  defining  what 
are  national  ships,  the  mode  of  registry,  their  peculiar  privileges,  and  the 
conditions  under  which  foreign  ships  shall  be  allowed  to  engage  in  the 
trade  of  the  country,  either  as  importers  or  exporters,  or  as  carriers  from 
one  part  of  the  country  to  another,  though  greatly  ameliorated,  are  still 
the  subject  of  liberal  legislation  for  further  reform.  That  nation  which 
will  guard  its  commerce  and  meliorate  its  restrictions  will  surely  reap  the 
benefits,  in  the  credit,  importance,  and  independence  of  its  citizens  and  its 
nationality.  It  is  with  this  high  purpose  that  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs  will  present  before  Congress  these  resolutions. 

It  is  perfectly  consistent  for  a  fair  mind  to  sustain  these  resolutions 
and  still  retain  the  belief  that  the  persons  seized  on  board  the  Trent  were 
contraband,  at  least  in  the  English  sense  of  that  term ;  and  however  we 
may  differ  as  to  the  propriety  of  restoring  the  persons  seized,  there  can 
be  no  difference  in  asking  for  a  better  code  in  reference  to  contraband, 
and  a  code  inspired  with  a  different  spirit  from  that  which  has  dictated  the 
English  opinions. 


172  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  submitted  on  the  Trent  question,  I  argued  that, 
from  an  English  stand-point,  England  could  not  make  reclamation,  and 
until  she  reversed  her  own  authorities  she  could  not  in  justice  complain 
of  the  action  of  Captain  "\Vilkes  as  illegal.  I  now  turn  from  the  conduct 
of  England,  which  has  settled  nothing  of  principle  involved  in  the  ques 
tions,  to  the  enlightened  action  of  France  and  the  other  Powers  of  Europe 
which  have  shown  an  interest  in  the  case,  as  a  matter  of  principle  involv 
ing  neutral  rights.  I  find  nothing  to  condemn,  but  every  thing  to  com 
mend,  in  the  action  of  the  French  Government  submitted  to  the  Commit 
tee.  It  was  dictated  by  her  traditional  friendship  for  this  country.  There 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  France  was  moved  by  any  other  motive  than 
that  expressed  by  her  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  his  letter  of  the  3d 
of  December,  1861,  in  which  he  says  that  the  desire  of  France  was  to 
prevent  a  conflict,  perhaps  imminent,  between  the  two  friendly  Powers — 
England  and  the  United  States — and  to  uphold  "  for  the  rights  of  her  own 
flag  certain  principles  essential  to  the  security  of  neutrals."  There  is 
nothing  in  this  letter  incompatible  with  the  sentiments  of  the  French  nation 
toward  us,  expressed  in  the  despatches  of  M.  Thouvenel  to  the  French 
Minister  at  Washington  on  the  16th  of  May  last.  In  that  letter  the  French 
Emperor  is  represented  as  anxious  to  do  all  in  his  power  toward  strength 
ening  and  maintaining  the  American  Union.  He  says  : 

"  The  Emperor,  indeed,  has  always  held  the  great  qualities  of  the  American  people  in 
too  high  esteem,  and  has  had  it  too  much  at  heart  to  draw  closer  the  bonds  which  unite 
them  to  France,  to  look  with  indifference  upon  the  calamities  which  now  threaten  them. 
His  Majesty  desires  that  the  United  States  should  not  lose,  by  any  political  disintegration, 
their  standing  as  a  great  Power,  and  that  they  should  not  abdicate,  to  the  injury  of  the 
general  interests  of  civilization  and  humanity,  the  position  which  their  rapid  and  brilliant 
development  has  assigned  them.  Should,  therefore,  such  circumstances  arise  that  the 
friendly  intentions  of  the  Emperor  should  seem  likely  to  lead  to  a  reconciliation  between 
the  States  of  the  South  and  those  of  the  North,  his  Majesty  would,  with  the  most  cordial 
enthusiasm,  contribute  to  the  extent  of  his  influence  toward  the  strengthening  or  the 
maintenance  of  the  Union." 

France  has  made  no  demonstration  of  a  change  of  these  sentiments 
from  that  day  to  the  present.  There  is  nothing  in  the  French  minister's 
despatch  on  the  Trent  affair  inconsistent  with  these  earnest  avowals  of 
friendship.  Congress  would  be  insensible  to  these  tenders,  did  it  not 
commend  them  to  the  approbation  of  the  American  people. 

Not  only  was  there  no  intermeddling  by  France  in  this  matter,  not 
only  was  her  tender  the  index  of  a  cordial  amity,  but  the  subject-matter 
of  her  despatch — the  rights  of  neutrals  upon  the  sea — was  a  subject  in 
which  she  had  a  common  interest  with  us  and  with  all  maritime  Powers. 
It  was  a  subject  in  which  she  had,  at  our  suggestion  some  years  since, 
taken  a  leading  and  lively  interest.  It  was  a  subject  the  most  important 
before  the  Paris  conferences  which  closed  the  Crimean  war.  It  was  urged 
upon  her  attention  during  the  past  summer  by  our  own  Government. 
Her  interest  in  it  is  only  second  to  that  of  this  Republic.  It  has  been 
manifested  in  the  enlightened  sentiments  of  her  publicists  and  the  diplo 
matic  missives  of  her  ministers. 

I  purposely  pretermit  any  discussion  of  the  question,  whether  the 
seizure  of  the  Trent  and  the  arrest  of  certain  of  her  passengers  was  right 
or  wrong.  It  will  serve  no  purpose  now  to  inquire  whether  her  passen- 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  173 

gers  were  contraband,  and  the  act  of  carrying  them  hostile.  I  do  not  pur 
pose  to  reopen  the  controversy  whether,  if  the  seizure  was  right,  the  de 
livery  of  the  persons  seized  was  right  or  wrong.  The  world  is  aware 
that  by  British  precedents,  the  British  Government  could  not,  without 
disavowing  its  old  policy  as  to  what  is  contraband  of  war,  make  reclama 
tion  for  the  persons  seized.  Mr.  Seward  well  sayo,  "  that  he  was  not 
tempted  at  all  by  suggestions  that  cases  might  be  found  in  history  where 
Great  Britain  refused  to  yield  to  other  nations,  and  even  to  ourselves, 
claims  like  that  now  before  us. "  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  wiser  had 
the  Trent  dispute  been  arbitrated  by  a  friendly  Power  like  that  of  France. 
She  would,  as  is  now  apparent,  have  settled  it  by  the  release  of  the 
prisoners  seized.  In  that  case,  we  would  have  had  an  authoritative  prece 
dent,  binding  Great  Britain  for  all  time,  and  made  in  harmony  with  the 
liberal  maritime  policy  which  it  has  been  the  pride  of  this  Republic  to 
urge  upon  the  nations  since  our  existence,  and  which  we  have,  in  the  first 
years  of  this  Government,  ingrafted  upon  treaties  with  foreign  Powers. 
It  would  have  been  full  compensation  to  us  for  the  mortification  which 
was  felt,  when  we  yielded  these  persons  to  the  English  demand,  had  we 
succeeded  in  crystallizing  into  international  law  that  lenient  and  catholic 
policy  with  regard  to  neutrals,  private  property,  and  non-combatants  on 
the  seas  which  has  obtained  on  land,  and  which,  as  Mr.  Seward  well  says, 
is  an  "  old,  honored,  and  cherished  American  cause,  not  upon  British 
authorities,  but  upon  principles  that  constitute  a  large  part  of  the  distinc 
tive  policy  by  which  the  United  States  have  developed  the  resources  of  a 
continent,  and  thus  becoming  a  considerable  maritime  Power,  have  won 
the  respect  and  confidence  of  many  nations.  " 

It  is  doubtless  true,  that  the  United  States  have  received  from  the  men 
of  other  times  and  countries  those  suggestions  as  to  the  freedom  of  the 
seas  and  the  rights  of  neutrals  of  whicli  she  has  made  herself  the  especial 
friend  and  champion.  Such  doctrines  were  the  natural  result  of  opposi 
tion  to  the  extravagant  pretensions  of  great  naval  Powers.  They  were  tITe 
result  of  natural  reason,  rebelling  against  arbitrary  force.  Nations  have 
at  different  eras  pretended  to  exclusive  control  of  the  sea,  especially  that 
part  adjacent  to  their  territories.  Denmark  claimed  the  Sound  and  other 
Baltic  passes.  Venice  espoused  the  Adriatic.  The  Portuguese  claimed 
the  South  Atlantic  and  the  Indian  Oceans.  Spain  once  pretended  to  have 
exclusively  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  The  gifted  Selden,  in  his  Mare  Clausum, 
claimed  for  England  the  four  seas  adjacent  to  Great  Britain.  During  the 
war  with  Napoleon,  England  claimed  municipal  rule  over  the  Atlantic, 
Mediterranean,  and  the  Baltic  ;  and  by  her  orders  in  council  and  her  acts 
of  Parliament  assumed  to  control  the  neutral  commerce  of  those  seas. 
Napoleon  retaliated.  America,  through  Jefferson,  appropriately  called 
these  acts  "  a  lawless  system  of  piracy."  America  held  that  the  sea  was 
the  common  highway  of  all ;  that  the  only  control  which  one  nation  had 
over  the  sea  was  the  curtilage  of  soil  and  jurisdiction  seaward  a  cannon 
shot  or  marine  league. 

This  is  the  principle  laid  down  by  the  best  writers,  and  it  is  the  doc 
trine  which  the  United  States  has,  ever  since  its  existence,  been  endeavor 
ing  to  ingraft  on  maritime  law.  The  vessel  is  the  floating  territory  of 
the  nation  under  whose  flag  it  sails,  and  no  Power  can  rightfully  question 


174  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

or  curtail  its  privilege  upon  the  sea.  John  Quincy  Adams,  following  the 
principle  of  Grotius,  nay,  of  the  Saviour  himself,  declared  that  all  belli 
gerent  practices  in  violation  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  rested  on  force 
and  not  on  natural  right.  In  1823,  as  Secretary  of  State,  he  declared  to 
our  Minister  at  Colombia  the  doctrines  of  these  resolutions.  But  he  was 
only  an  humble  follower  of  Benjamin  Franklin  and  his  compatriots  of 
the  Revolution.  In  the  twelfth  article  of  our  treaty  with  Prussia  of 
1785,  these  doctrines  are  most  distinctly  set  forth.  The  reasons  assigned 
by  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Jefferson  for  such  improvements  in  public  law 
are  not  selfish,  not  exclusive,  not  national,  but  coextensive  with  the  inter 
ests  of  humanity.  These  statesmen  hoped  to  sec  the  day  when  cultiva 
tors  of  the  earth,  fishermen,  merchants,  traders  in  unarmed  ships,  artists, 
mechanics,  and  all  who  are  not  directly  engaged  in  the  work  of  war, 
should  receive  immunity  from  its  ravages.  They  denounced  the  practice 
of  robbing  merchants,  either  by  public  or  private  armed  ships,  as  a  rem 
nant  of  ancient  piracy.  They  wished  the  calamities  of  war  softened,  and 
hostilities  to  be  made  rare  by  removing  the  cupidity  which  prompted 
them.  Washington,  in  his  letter  to  Count  de  Rochambeau  of  July  31, 
1780,  spoke  of  this  treaty  with  Prussia  as  the  most  liberal  which  had 
ever  been  made,  as  original,  as  marking  a  new  era  in  negotiation,  and  as 
tending  more  fully  to  produce  a  general  pacification  than  any  measure 
heretofore  attempted  by  mankind.  Henry  Clay,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
in  his  instructions  to  6ur  Panama  commissioners,  caught  the  very  genius 
of  these  principles,  and  sought  to  have  them  impressed  upon  the  public 
law  of  this  continent ;  while  later,  President  Pierce  and  Secretary  Marcy, 
filled  with  the  generous  thought,  and  with  an  argument  which  has  no  reply, 
sought  to  affix  them  to  the  laws  of  the  world  as  the  tribute  of  American 
statesmanship  to  the  interests  of  mankind.  Indeed,  America  has  scarcely 
a  great  name  whose  fame  is  not  inwoven  with  this  doctrine  of  free  seas. 
In  the  time  of  Madison — one  of  the  most  sagacious  expounders — we  went 
to  war  with  England  for  its  settlement.  Time  has  done  what  arms  did 
not  and  what  diplomacy  could  not  do.  To-day  there  is  no  pretension  to 
search  our  ships  for  seamen.  The  globe  we  live  upon,  three-fourths  of 
which  is  covered  with  water,  no  longer  tolerates  the  arbitrary  usages 
of  the  powerful ;  but  the  weakest  State  as  well  as  the  greatest  may  com 
pass  the  ends  of  the  world  without  fear  or  hindrance.  For  these  im 
provements  in  the  interchanges  of  mankind,  the  world  owes  a  debt  of 
gratitude  to  the  United  States. 

In  the  development  of  this  distinctive  policy  France  has  ever  been  a 
collaborates  with  our  Republic.  Her  interests  and  her  inclination  have 
accorded  with  ours.  That  so  much  cannot  be  said  of  Great  Britain  is 
owing,  in  part,  to  our  peculiar  relations  with  her,  as  her  own  revolution 
ary  child ;  in  part,  to  her  being  for  so  many  years  of  our  maritime 
progress  a  belligerent,  while  we  were  a  neutral,  and  to  her  chronic  fear 
lest  the  rising  Republic  of  the  "West  should  dispute  with  her  the  trident, 
which  she  has  so  long  and  so  powerfully  wielded. 

Whatever  may  be  our  present  untoward  situation  with  respect  to  our 
domestic  conflicts,  it  is  not  the  policy  of  this  country  to  change  its  former 
relations  toward  other  Powers.  Peace  has  been  the  history  of  this  nation. 
However  gloomy  the  war  cloud  may  lower  over  us,  peace  will  continue 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  175 

to  increase  the  greatness  we  have  achieved  by  its  blessings.  Hence  our 
interest  lies,  not  in  clamoring  for  belligerent,  but  in  the  recognition  of 
neutral  rights.  Tell  me  not  that  we  may  become  a  belligerent,  and  then 
that  this  yielding  of  belligerent  rights  in  favor  of  neutrals  will  be  to  our 
prejudice.  I  care  not  if  we  do  become  a  belligerent  with  Great  Britain, 
the  greatest  naval  power.  So  long  as  we-  have  a  larger  commerce  than 
hers  and  a  less  naval  force,  our  interest  even  as  belligerent  with  her  still 
lies  in  the  protection  of  our  private  property  under  neutral  flags,  or  in  our 
hostile  flag  covering  the  goods  of  friends.  If  we  can  obtain  her  assent  to 
the  Marcy  doctrine,  that  her  armed  cruisers  shall  not  harm  our  commerce, 
we  may  well  agree  that  our  privateers  shall  not  harm  hers.  In  case  of 
the  adoption  of  the  Marcy  amendment,  the  worst  result  to  be  apprehended 
by  England  in  case  of  war  with  us,  is  the  comparative  uselessiiess  of  her 
immense  naval  force.  Her  cruisers  would  be  used  only  to  fight  our 
cruisers  ou  the  sea,  or  to  blockade  our  ports.  Our  commerce  would  go 
on  ;  and  under  the  improvements  in  mailing  ships  with  iron,  her  blockades 
would  be  of  little  avail,  under  the  guns  of  our  Monitors. 

Therefore  we  would  gain,  even  as  belligerents  with  England  or  any 
other  Power,  were  the  doctrines  I  contend  for  embodied  in  the  code  inter 
national.  But  our  interests  will  seldom  be  those  of  belligerents  ;  our  policy 
is  ever  that  of  peace.  Neutrality  has  enriched  us.  Our  peaceful  attitude 
during  the  Napoleonic  and  Crimean  wars  not  only  filled  the  sails  of  our 
merchantmen  with  enterprise,  but  the  coffers  of  our  merchants  with  money. 
We  are  not  an  aggressive  people.  Our  interests  lie  alongside  of  our 
civilization,  and  we  are  to  conquer  the  material  wealth  of  the  world  by 
our  interchanges  and  treaties.  Whatever,  therefore,  aids  us  in  this  regard 
should  be  the  aim  of  our  statesmen  and  the  ambition  of  our  people.  Hap 
pily,  France,  Prussia,  Russia,  Austria,  Italy,  and  all  the  other  maritime 
Powers,  unless  it  be  England,  have  with  us,  and  have  expressed  to  us,  an 
identity  of  interest  and  policy  ;  and  these  are  in  unison  with  the  interests, 
honor,  progress,  and  civilization  of  each  and  every  nation. 

It  is  not  unbecoming  now  for  the  Representatives  of  the  American 
people,  while  the  discussion  of  these  maritime  questions  is  rife  in  both 
hemispheres,  to  give  its  emphatic  declaration.  Public  opinion  is  one  of 
the  sources  of  international  law.  By  its  silent  influences  treaties  are  cele 
brated,  congresses  of  nations  are  convened,  maxims  of  policy  are  declared, 
and  usages  are  inaugurated.  Such  a  declaration  is  the  more  becoming 
now,  because  our  action  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  session  in  approv 
ing  the  seizure  of  the  persons  from  the  Trent  is  liable  to  be  interpreted 
against  the  policy  which  we  have  maintained  with  respect  to  neutrals. 
Our  diplomacy  has  ever  advocated  the  most  liberal  views,  while  our  courts 
base  their  decisions  on  what  the  rest  of  Christendom  has  regarded  as  the 
exceptional  rules  of  English  admiralty  law.  We  have  tried  ever  since 
our  existence  as  a  nation  to  change  these  rules  of  English  origin  by  nego 
tiation  ;  but  our  Supreme  Court,  with  the  maxim,  stare  decisis,  have  kept 
on  holding  what  the  law  of  nations  was  at  the  time  we  were  a  part  of 
Great  Britain,  and,  as  a  consequence,  our  thoughts  are  far  ahead  of  the 
law,  and  our  treaties  in  advance  of  our  jurisprudence. 

From  France  we  have  abundant  evidence  that  her  Government  and 
people  agree  to  the  doctrines  propounded  to  them  by  us  in  1856,  and  em- 


176  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

bracing  with  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Marcy  the  Paris  declarations  of  1856, 
which  she  inaugurated.  If  it  were  necessary  to  prove  this  to  the  Ameri 
can  Congress,  I  would  refer  to  a  letter  of  the  distinguished  editor  of 
TVheaton,  Hon.  TV.  Beach  Lawrence,  to  wrhose  learned  pen  I  am  indebted 
for  many  suggestions  in  this  connection.  TVhilc  perusing  the  papers 
placed  at  his  disposition  by  the  last  Administration,  he  found: — 1.  An 
entire  unanimity  of  sentiment  among  the  minor  maritime  Powers  in  favor 
of  the  Marcy  proposition,  as  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  Paris  declara 
tions  ;  2.  The  adhesion  of  Russia  and  Prussia  with  the  most  generous 
cordiality ;  3.  The  assent  of  Italy,  through  Count  Cavour,  to  the  Marcy 
amendment.  That  statesman  told  our  minister  at  Turin  that  England  was 
the  only  obstacle  to  the  adoption  of  the  principle.  "  She,"  he  said,  u  did 
not  wish  to  render  private  property  free  from  the  devastation  of  war, 
while  she  wished  the  United  States  to  give  up  privateering,  or,  if  unable 
to  do  that,  to  render  the  right  valueless,  by  depriving  the  United  States 
of  the  right  which  they  had  hitherto  enjoyed  in  neutral  ports.  4.  The 
assurance  by  Count  TValewski,  in  November,  1856,  that  the  French 
Government  would  agree  to  the  declaration  as  modified  by  us,  though  the 
formal  assent  wras  deferred,  with  a  view  to  consultation  with  the  other 
parties  to  the  Paris  declaration  ;  5.  A  disposition  on  the  part  of  English 
statesmen  to  consider  the  question,  with  a  view  to  certain  reservations  to 
be  submitted  to  the  Powers  called  to  examine  and  settle  the  questions. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  formal  alliance  of  England  with  France — in 
Turkey,  Mexico,  or  China — France  is  our  ally  in  these  doctrines.  She 
has  ever  been  faithful  to  them.  She  has  procured  the  accession  of  forty- 
six  Powers  to  them.  The  correspondence  of  this  Government  with  her 
last  summer,  shows  that  she  would  have  been  willing  to  have  treated  with 
us  on  their  basis,  as  enlarged  by  the  proposition  of  Secretary  Marcy.  Mr. 
Dayton  was  induced  to  urge  the  adoption  of  the  Marcy  amendment  ex 
empting  private  property  from  seizure  and  confiscation,  not  only,  as  he 
says,  because  it  was  the  wish  of  the  President,  and  because  of  the  great 
importance  of  securing  the  adoption  of  the  principle  before  the  United 
States  should  give  up  the  right  of  privateering;  but  also  "because  the 
facts  patent  in  the  correspondence  of  the  American  Legation  at  Paris  in 
185G,  show  that  France  and  Russia  were  both  favorably  disposed  at  that 
time  to  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  the  amendment  (see  Mr.  Marcy's 
dispatch  to  Mr.  Mason,  No.  94,  dated  October  4,  1856,  and  Mr.  Mason's 
confidential  letter  to  Mr.  Dallas  of  December  6,  1856),  and  from  the  ob 
vious  fact  that  it  would  be  the  interest  of  all  the  other  Powers  having  little 
naval  force  to  concur  in  the  amendment."  (See  papers  on  Foreign  Affairs, 
1862,  p.  210.)  So  that  France,  as  early  as  1856,  was  ready  to  accept 
the  Marcy  amendment,  and  but  for  the  clause  in  the  Paris  convention, 
binding  each  party  against  further  negotiation  on  the  subject  without  the 
consent  of  all  the  parties,  she  doubtless  would  have  accomplished  her  wish 
then.  (See  papers  on  Foreign  Affairs,  1862,  p.  109.)  Her  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  in  his  letter  of  the  3d  of  December,  1861,  most  respect 
fully  protests  against  our  falling  back  upon  vexatious  practices,  against 
which  in  other  epochs  no  Power  has  more  earnestly  protested  than  the 
United  States.  But,  as  still  more  significant,  we  find  that  the  most  dis 
tinguished  writer  on  the  law  of  nations  in  France,  or  in  the  world — M. 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  177 

Hautefeuille — in  the  Revue  Contemporaine  of  February  last,  enters  his  most 
learned  and  pointed  protest  against  those  evils  of  naval  warfare  which  for 
"  upwards  of  two  hundred  years,  whenever  the  nation  most  powerful  at 
sea  has  been  engaged  in  hostilities,  has  inflicted  quite  as  much  damage 
upon  neutrals  as  upon  its  adversary."  He  appeals  to  France,  to  us,  to 
the  world,  to  take  part  in  a  new  coalition  of  neutrality ;  which,  like  that 
of  Russia  in  1780,  will  form  an  aggregate  sufficiently  formidable  to  coun 
terbalance  the  naval  superiority  of  any  belligerents.  "The  maritime 
equilibrium,  so  important  for  the  repose  and  freedom  of  the  universe,  will 
thus  be  established.  Formed  in  anticipation  of  war,  it  will  subsist  in  time 
of  peace,  and  become  a  lasting  element  in  the  international  relations  of 
civilized  peoples."  Cotemporaneous  with  this  exposition  from  France,  I 
observe  without  much  surprise  a  retrogressive  spirit  from  England.  With 
out  surprise,  for  I  have  not  been  unobservant  of  the  fact°that  English 
claims  to  superiority  on  the  ocean,  and  her  continued  status  of  belligeren 
cy,  hardly  consist  with  such  liberal  sentiments  as  those  proposed  by 
France,  or  even  those  adopted  by  herself  at  the  Paris  conferences  of  1856. 
It  was  therefore  not  surprising  that  Earl  Malmesbury,  an  ex-Foreign  Sec- 
/etary  of  England,  in  a  debate  brought  us  by  a  late  steamer,  referring  to 
the  declaration  of  the  Paris  conferences,  in  relation  to  the  inviolability  of 
an  enemy's  goods  in  neutral  ships,  said  that  her  Majesty's  Government  in 
time  of  war  would  be  induced  to  disregard  its  obligatory  nature.  He  was 
asked  by  Earl  Granville  to  modify  this  extraordinary  language.  He  only 
added  to  its  force  by  a  sentiment,  which  has  been  too  often  acted  on  by 
England,  that  a  warlike  people  like  the  English  would  not  be  restrained, 
in  the  extremity  of  war,  by  a  paper  declaration  made  at  Paris  in  1856  ! 
In  the  same  debate,  the  present  Foreign  Secretary,  Earl  Russell,  volun 
teered  to  say,  and  I  think  with  more  meaning  than  meets  the  ear,  that  he 
did  not  quite  approve  the  declaration  made  at  Paris  !  In  a  more  recent 
debate,  on  the  llth  ultimo,  the  member  for  Liverpool,  Mr.  Horsfall, 
offered  a  resolution,  expressing  the  truth,  that  .the  present  state  of  inter 
national  law,  as  affecting  belligerents  and  neutrals,  is  ill-defined  and  un 
satisfactory.  He  contended  that  England  must  retreat  from  her  Paris 
declaration  or  advance  toward  tjie  Marcy  amendment.  As  she  stood  now, 
the  effect  upon  England  would  be  to  throw  the  carrying  trade  wholly  into 
neutral  hands,  or  to  diminish  her  fighting  power  by  diverting  a  large  part 
of  her  naval  force  for  convoys.  But  the  Government  opposed  this  move 
ment  of  commerce.  The  Attorney-General  and  Secretary  of  War  disap 
proved  the  resolution.  Lord  Palmerston,  concluding  the  debate,  said 
"  that  the  principle  contended  for,  if  carried  into  practice,  would  level  a 
fatal  blow  at  the  naval  power  of  this  country,  and  would  be  an  act  of  po 
litical  suicide."  So  that  we  may  not  be  surprised  if  England  recedes  from 
the  Paris  declaration.  It  was  not  without  reluctance  that  Lord  Cowley 
agreed  to  the  four  propositions  of  that  conference  looking  to  the  liberation 
of  commerce  from  the  shackles  of  tradition,  barbarism,  and  the  vicissi 
tudes  of  war.  Scarcely  had  the  Paris  treaty  been  celebrated  and  pub 
lished  before  a  resolution  was  offered  by  Lord  Colchester  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  declaring  "the  right  of  capturing  an  enemy's  goods  on  board 
of  neutral  vessels  to  be  inherent  in  all  belligerent  Powers  ;  the  maintenance 
of  this  right  to  be  of  essential  importance,  and  its  abandonment  of  serious 
12 


178  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

injurj  to  a  power  whose  main  reliance  is  on  her  naval  superiority,"  etc. 
That  resolution,  though  it  did  not  pass,  received  the  votes  of  over  a  hun 
dred  of  her  Majesty's  most  conservative  peers. 

Since  then,  the  English  Government  has  been  ill  content  with  the 
acquiescence  its  ambassador  gave  at  the  green  table  of  Paris  in  1856. 
When  the  present  Administration  of  this  Government  proposed  again  to 
accede  to  the  Paris  propositions,  as  the  correspondence  between  Mr. 
Adams  and  Earl  Russell  shows,  England  utterly  rejected  the  benignant 
and  enlightened  policy  by  which  Mr.  Marcy  proposed  to  accompany  the 
abolition  of  privateers,  namely:  "  that  the  private  property  of  the  subjects 
or  citizens  of  a  belligerent  on  the  high  seas  shall  be  exempted  from  seizure 
by  public  armed  vessels  of  the  other  belligerent,  except  it  be  contraband." 
There  is,  as  I  have  said,  no  doubt  that  France,  but  for  her  alliance  with 
England,  would  have  accepted  this  amendment.  Mr.  Adams,  in  his  letter 
to  Mr.  Seward  of  July  26,  1861,  says  that  he  learned  from  a  personal 
interview  with  Mr.  Dayton  "that  there  was  no  reason  to  presume  that 
there  was  any  disinclination  in  France  to  adopt  the  Marcy  amendment. 
Neither  did  the  reply  of  M.  Thouvenel  entirely  preclude  the  hope  of  its 
ultimate  success  so  far  as  the  disposition  of  France  may  be  presumed. 
The  obstacles,  if  any  there  are,  must  be  inferred  to  exist  elsewhere. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  opposition  to  this  modification  centres 
here  [in  London].  Independently  of  the  formal  announcement  of  Lord 
John  Russell  to  me,  that  the  proposition  was  declined,  I  have,  from  other 
sources  of  information,  some  reason  to  believe  that  it  springs  from  the 
tenacity  of  a  class  of  influential  persons,  by  their  age  and  general  affinities 
averse  to  all  sudden  variations  from  established  ideas." 

During  the  progress  of  the  negotiations  at  London,  it  was  ascertained 
that  the  Marcy  amendment  was  inadmissible.  Then  our  negotiators  with 
much  reluctance,  at  least  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Dayton,  consented  -to  the 
Paris  propositions  of  1856,  pure  and  simple,  including  the  abolition  of 
privateering,  without  its  proper  equivalent,  the  protection  of  private  prop 
erty  from  public  armed  vessels.  I  honor  Mr.  Dayton's  reluctance. 
Such  a  treaty  ought  never  to  be  made.  It  never  would  have  been  con 
firmed  by  any  Senate  speaking  for  the  American  people — never.  But  it 
was  tendered  without  the  above  valuable  equivalent,  when  lo  !  the  British 
Government  refused  even  to  adopt  it  unconditionally.  It  turned  out,  that 
her  reservation  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  insurrectionists  in  the  United 
States.  She  was  willing  to  accept  the  Paris  propositions,  provided  it 
would  not  affect  any  thing  "  already  done."  The  thing  already  done  by 
her  was  the  recognition  of  our  insurgent  States  as  belligerents.  By  her 
conduct  since,  in  the  case  of  the  Nashville,  and  her  diplomacy  then,  she 
fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Mr.  Seward,  in  his  letter  of  May  21,  1861,  to 
Mr.  Adams : 

u  If  she  refuse,  it  can  only  be  because  she  is  willing  to  become  the  patron  of  privateer 
ing,  when  aimed  at  our  devastation." — See  papers  on  Foreign  Affairs,  p.  73. 

One  thing  is  sure :  this  Government  could  not  for  a  moment  allow 
the  abolition  of  privateers,  in  general,  with  an  exception  in  favor  of  a 
domestic  enemy  with  a  belligerent  status  abroad,  without  compromising 
the  "  legal  character  of  this  Government  as  the  exclusive  sovereign  in 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  179 

peace  and  war  over  all  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  Federal  Union, 
and  over  all  citizens,  disloyal  and  loyal  alike."  So  that  our  attempts  to 
reform  the  usages  of  maritime  law  in  the  interests  -of  commerce,  were 
met  in  a  spirit  hostile  to  the  liberal  views  of  France,  and  hostile  to  the 
progressive  character  of  the  age.  The  unrelenting  rigidity  of  British 
policy  upon  the  sea,  which  it  was  hoped  had  been  tempered  with  a  higher 
civilization  by  her  contact  with  the  continental  Powers  at  Paris  in  1856, 
was  again  triumphant,  to  our  discomfiture.  Negotiations  on  the  subject 
were  suspended  by  the  action  of  Great  Britain.  The  Paris  plenipoten 
tiaries,  on  the  16th  of  April,  1856,  undertook  to  settle  the  deplorable  dis 
putes  arising  out  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  law  of  neutrals  and  belliger 
ents.  They  had  seen  the  conflicts  arising  from  differences  of  opinion  as 
to  the  duties  of  neutrals  and  belligerents.  They  desired  uniformity. 
To  this  end  they  adopted  the  declaration:  1.  That  privateering  remains 
abolished.  2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy's  goods,  with  the  exception 
of  contraband  of  war.  3.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra 
band  of  war,  are  not  liable  to  capture  under  the  enemy's  flag.  4.  Block 
ades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective.  The  plenipotentiaries 
anticipated  for  these  maxims  the  gratitude  of  the  world.  Nearly  fifty 
Powers  have  adopted  them.  The  United  States  offered  to  accede  to  them 
with  the  most  beneficial  expansion ;  and  again  to  accede  to  them  pure 
and  simple,  which,  in  my  judgment,  was  a  most  questionable  and  ill-ad 
vised  policy. 

So  much  for  the  history  of  negotiations  on  this  subject.  What  now 
of  the  future  of  these  questions  ?  All  history  shows  that  treaties  exist 
no  longer  than  there  is  a  power  to  enforce  them.  It  is  only  by  an  alliance 
for  neutrality,  such  as  M.  Hautefeuille  proposes,  that  we  can  constrain 
England  to  respect  the  general  law  of  nations,  to  which  she  is  already  a 
party,  when  that  law  is  counter  to  her  interests,  traditions,  and  naval 
glory  and  supremacy.  If  England  should  make  unjust  pretensions  with 
reference  to  the  rights  of  belligerents,  such  a  congress  could  settle  the 
matter  with  authority.  It  is  well  agreed  among  the  wisest  of  mankind 
now  what  the  rules  of  international  jurisprudence  should  be  on  these  sub 
jects.  It  is  our  duty  to  make  them  as  they  ought  to  be. 

There  are  other  questions  as  to  neutral  rights  yet  to  be  acted  upon. 
Not  only  ought  it  to  be  settled  now,  that  private  property  shall  be  re 
spected  on  sea  as  on  land  ;  but  if  contraband  is  excepted  from  the  invio 
lability  of  the  neutral  flag  and  cargo,  it  ought  to  be  fixed  what  is  and 
what  is  not  contraband  ;  whether  dispatches  or  persons  are  included  in 
contraband — if  persons,  what  and  who  ?  whether  confined  to  military,  or 
extended  to  civil  and  diplomatic,  or  quasi  diplomatic  persons  ?  Here  is 
the  pivotal  point  in  these  questions.  They  are  insoluble,  unless  we  know 
what  contraband  means.  I  would  call  attention  to  the  last  resolution, 
with  reference  to  the  meaning  of  contraband.  It  was  the  suggestion  of 
the  distinguished  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  the  gen 
tleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN],  who  now  honors 'me  with  his 
attention.  It  expresses  the  hope  that  the  Powers  of  the  world  will  define 
with  exactitude  the  meaning  of  contraband,  with  a  view  to  the  least  re 
striction  on  trade.  Had  this  been  done  before,  the  Trent  difficulty  never 
would  have  occurred.  That  question,  in  a  nutshell,  was  whether  contra- 


180  EIGHT   TEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

band  embraced  hostile  ambassadors.  According  to  the  English  defini 
tion,  contraband  means  whatever  will  aid  the  enemy.  Hence  the  term  is 
indefinite  and  elastic.  To  settle  its  meaning  would  be  of  great  utility. 
It  means  gunpowder,  it  may  mean  coal.  It  means  shot  and  shell,  it  may 
mean  provisions.  It  means  saltpetre,  it  may  mean  despatches.  It  means 
military  men,  it  may  mean  ambassadors.  It  may  mean  any  thing  a  bel 
ligerent  who  has  the  power  may  determine.  McCulloch,  in  his  Diction 
ary,  page  881,  in  referring  to  this  subject  with  his  English  inclinations 
against  liberal  views,  says  : 

"  In  judging  of  the  wisdom  of  this  concession,  every  thing  depends  on  the  interpreta 
tion  of  the  phrase  'contraband  of  war.'  If  it  were  restricted,  as  has  usually  been  the 
case,  to  warlike  stores  (munitions  de  guerre\  or  articles  directly  available  for  warlike  pur 
poses,  it  would  be  in  many  respects  justly  censurable.  For  it  is  plain,  that  under  the 
limitation  now  supposed,  the  trade  of  a  belligerent  Power  with  its  colonies,  or  other 
countries  beyond  sea,  might  be  prosecuted  in  neutral  ships  nearly  to  the  same  extent  and 
with  as  much  security  during  war  as  during  peace.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  that  a 
principle  having  such  consequences  should  be  acted  upon  by  any  Power  having  a  prepon 
derating  naval  force,  in  the  event  of  her  engaging  in  hostilities.  Such  Power  must  then 
do  one  of  two  things :  she  must  either  consent  to  relinquish  some  of  the  most  important 
advantages  to  be  derived  from  her  naval  ascendency,  or  she  must  reject  the  principle  in 
question.  And  there  is  little  doubt  that  she  would  adopt  the  latter  alternative ;  and  she 
might  do  this  directly  by  resorting  to  her  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  seize  enemy's 
goods  wherever  they  are  to  be  met  with  ;  or  indirectly,  by  extending  the  list  of  contra 
band  articles,  so  as  to  make  it  include  all  those  of  any  importance  carried  by  sea  into  or 
from  the  enemy's  porfs.  Either  way  would  answer  the  purpose  ;  and  we  may  be  pretty 
well  assured  that,  under  the  supposed  circumstances,  one  or  other  of  them  would  be  fol 
lowed." 

Again,  he  says : 

"  Considered  in  this,  its  true  light,  the  term  '  contraband  of  war  '  becomes  of  the 
highest  importance ;  and  there  are  but  few  products  which  may  not  be  fairly  brought, 
at  one  period  or  another,  within  the  list  of  contraband  articles.  Thus,  supposing  that 
we  had  the  misfortune  to  be  engaged  in  a  contest  with  a  single  Power,  or  a  combination 
of  Powers,  which  had  means  to  intercept,  cut  off,  or  materially  obstruct  our  supplies  of 
corn,  cotton,  and  tea,  can  any  one  doubt  that  our  enemies  would  be  justified,  or  that  they 
would  hesitate  in  availing  themselves  of  so  powerful  a  means  of  annoyance  ?  Neutrals 
might  protest  against  such  a  proceeding,  on  the  ground  that  the  articles  referred  to  had 
not  hitherto  been  reckoned  contraband  of  war,  and  they  might  also  allege  that  their  trade 
would  be  seriously  prejudiced  by  so  unusual  and  so  illegal  a  proceeding.  But  these  re 
presentations,  supposing  them  to  be  made,  would  not  go  for  much.  Our  enemies  would 
say,  that  in  defining  contraband  of  war  every  thing  depended  on  circumstances  ;  and  that 
as  the  want  of  the  articles  referred  to  would  lay  us  under  very  considerable  difficulties, 
they  were  from  that  very  circumstance  properly  included  in  the  prohibited  list." 

One  of  the  chief  objects  of  negotiation  ought  to  be  to  give  as  much 
precision  as  possible  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  u  contraband,"  that  trade 
may  have  as  few  fetters  as  possible.  The  settlement  ought  to  be  so  sol 
emn  that  it  would  be  out  of  the  power  of  any  one  of  the  parties  to  it, 
however  strong  in  its  navy,  to  pursue,  when  a  belligerent,  a  practice  op 
posite  to  its  professions  in  time  of  peace. 

Treaties  have  been  made  embodying  the  maxim  of  "  free  ships,  free 
goods,"  as  early  as  1604,  by  France  with  the  Sublime  Porte.  Some  of 
the  Christian  powers  of  Europe  adopted  the  same  in  1716.  (Wheaton's 
Law  of  Nations,  p.  315.)  But  they  were  the  mere  cobwebs  of  peace, 
and  the  rough  hand  of  war  brushed  them  away.  Never  till  the  United 
States  began  to  obtain  exemption  from  searches  and  seizures,  practised 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  181 

upon  the  neutral  flag  and  cargo — as  in  1778  from  France,  and  in  1780 
from  Russia — was  there  any  considerable  progress  made  against  the  arro 
gant  belligerency  of  that  high  constable  of  the  seas,  Great  Britain.  Now, 
we  have  the  opportunity  of  securing  the  fruits  of  our  long  urgency.  If 
we  are  now  successful,  commerce  will  be  enfranchised,  and  our  nation 
will,  with  its  extensive  and  extending  tonnage,  take  its  place  at  the  head 
of  the  commercial  world.  New  York  will  inevitably  become  what  Lon 
don  is,  what  Amsterdam  and  Venice  were — universi  orbis  terrarum  empo 
rium. 

The  present  time  is  auspicious  for  such  action  by  our  nation.  France 
invites  ;  Russia,  Austria,  Italy,  and  Prussia  are  anxious  to  meet  us.  All 
the  Powers  are  moving  upward  to  the  high  level  of  our  own  Republic 
with  regard  to  maritime  rights.  Even  England  may  forego,  under  the 
pressure  of  a  congress  of  nations,  her  barbaric  code,  laggard  notions,  iso 
lated  pride,  and  naval  supremacy,  to  join  in  the  exalted  labors  so  eloquently 
suggested  by  the  French  publicist.  We  must  not  forget  to  do  England 
justice.  She  has  progressed.  Reluctant  as  are  her  public  men  to  give  up 
her  old  policy,  even  England,  through  her  enterprising  merchants,  is 
making  strides  toward  a  better  condition.  We  \vould  fain  hope  that  her 
protest  in  the  Trent  affair  means  something  more  than  wounded  pride  at 
the  affront  to  her  flag.  We  hope  it  means  an  inclination  toward  a  re 
gard  for  neutral  rights,  yet  in  embryo,  in  her  policy,  but  to  gain  a  full 
stature  under  the  liberal  influences  of  the  age.  We  can  hardly  recognize 
in  the  England  of  to-day  that  Power  which  for  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  while  supreme  on  the  ocean  and  while  at  war,  made  the  position  of 
a  neutral  more  precarious  than  that  of  an  enemy.  The  England  of  to 
day,  which  does  not  pretend  to  revive  her  claim  to  search  for  English 
seamen  on  American  vessels,  but  to  revive  which  is  considered  by  one  of 
her  authors  as  impolitic  and  unjust,  so  late  as  1818,  through  Lord  Castle- 
reagh  to  Mr.  Rush,  and  in  1842,  through  Lord  Ashburton  to  Mr.  Web 
ster,  insisted  on  these  barbarous  and  hateful  rules  of  maritime  law.  This 
is  progress.  The  England  which,  on  the  30th  of  November  last,  through 
Earl  Russell,  protested  that  certain  individuals  had  been  forcibly  taken  by 
an  American  ship  of  war  from  on  board  a  British  vessel,  "  the  ship  of  a 
neutral  Power,  while  such  vessel  was  pursuing  a  lawful  and  innocent 
voyage ;  an  act  of  violence  which  was  an  affront  to  the  British  flag  and  a 
violation  of  international  law,"  is  very  unlike  that  England — as  she  is 
described  by  one  of  her  economists — whose  mode  of  carrying  out  the  Brit 
ish  claim  to  search  and  seize  the  property  of  an  enemy  wherever  found, 
was  so  vexatious,  overbearing,  and  insolent,  that  the  vessels  of  neutrals 
were  driven  from  their  course,  detained  for  hours,  losing  fair  winds  and 
fine  opportunities,  and  their  captains  and  crews  often  seized  and  always 
insulted ;  the  arbitrary  officers  of  whose  men-of-war,  with  unlimited  and 
arbitrary  power,  did  not  treat  their  own  crews  or  their  own  merchant 
ships  with  forbearance  and  humanity  ;  who  despised  all  foreigners,  partic 
ularly  the  Americans,  often  treating  them  with  rudeness  and  arrogance, 
utterly  careless  of  causing  them  unnecessary  delay.  Here  again  is  con 
spicuous  reform  !  The  England  of  to-day,  with  her  Oxford  professorship 
of  international  law  and  her  increasing  regard  for  the  rights  of  others,  is 
very  unlike  that  England  whose  prize  court  decisions  from  1793  to  1815 


182  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

strained  every  belligerent  right  to  the  uttermost  and  imposed  prohibition 
on  prohibition  upon  neutrals,  until  "  neutrality  itself  was  prohibited." 
Still  another  stride  !  The  England  which  now  protests  against  stone 
blockades  and  the  spoliation  of  harbors,  hardly  seems  like  the  England  in 
Napoleonic  times,  when  she  set  us  the  example  in  a  foreign  harbor  which 
we  have  chosen  to  follow  in  our  own.  This  is  another  step  forward. 
The  England  which  now  demands  an  effective  blockade,  "  maintained  by 
a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the  enemy,"  and 
which  inquires  carefully  in  her  Parliament  as  to  the  number  and  tonnage 
of  the  vessels  which  are  alleged  to  have  run  the  blockade  instituted  by 
ourselves  of  our  own  harbors,  is  hardly  the  England  which  pretended  that 
the  whole  of  the  seaboard  of  France  was  blockaded  in  consequence  of 
her  paper  proclamation  and  of  its  geographical  position  with  respec£to 
the  English  coasts.  Here  is  an  immense  stride  !  The  England  of  to-day, 
which  disputes  as  to  the  efficiency  of  our  blockade,  with  cotton  at  fivepence  in 
New  Orleans  and  twelvepence  in  Liverpool,  is  not  the  England  of  a  half 
century  ago,  when  by  her  pretences  of  "  prevention  and  pursuit,"  she 
made  her  cruisers  on  one  side  of  the  world  the  avengers  of  a  broken  paper 
blockade  of  the  coasts  on  the  other  side  !  England  to-day  tardily  yields 
to  the  Paris  propositions — still  she  yields — but  how  unlike  that  England 
the  belligerent,  when,  as  Hautefeuille  says,  "  she  persecuted  and  destroyed 
neutral  navies  to  preserve  that  naval  power  which,  by  the  special  favor 
of  Providence,  she  derived  from  the  valor  of  her  people  (Order  in  Coun 
cil  of  19th  November,  1787),  a  power  which  she  declared  essential  for  the 
happiness  and  independence  of  mankind  !  "  How  unlike  that  England  of 
1787,  is  this  England  of  1854,  when  the  Crimean  war  began,  and  when 
she  renunciated  her  right  to  seize  hostile  goods  under  neutral  flags,  and 
allowed  reasonable  time  for  Russian  vessels  lying  in  English  ports  to  clear 
.  out,  and  even  refused  letters  of  marque  to  her  privateers !  These  late 
deviations  from  old  English  practice  are  both  politic  and  merciful.  The 
material  and  mercantile  advantages  which  France  and  the  United  States 
perceive  from  such  a  policy  would  accrue  to  England  in  far  greater  meas 
ure  than  by  claiming  technical  rights,  decided  by  her  admiralty  courts  or 
codified  in  her  own  lex  gentium.  Her  ancient  practice  was  dictated  by 
her  desire  to  vindicate  her  maritime  greatness,  and  crush  the  aspirations 
of  naval  competitors.  It  agreed  with  the  formalized  traditions  of  vener 
able  tribunals  sanctioning  the  harsh  customs  of  war,  and  inconsistent  with 
fair  play  upon  the  seas.  To  sustain  this  practice,  she  reasoned  thus :  A 
hostile  vessel,  with  neutral  goods,  rivalled  her  in  the  carrying  trade.  It 
was  taking  from  nations,  while  neutral,  pro  tanto  certain  profits,  a  propor 
tion  of  which  would  eventually  swell  the  resources  of  the  enemy  with 
whom  she  was  at  war.  That  must  be  stopped.  Again  :  a  neutral  ship, 
carrying  hostile  goods,  likewise  encouraged  the  commerce,  extended  the 
relations,  and  indirectly  augmented  the  wealth  of  the  foe.  That,  too, 
must  be  stopped.  So  in  either  case  the  enemy  was  benefited  by  the  im 
punity  and  damnified  by  the  stoppage  of  such  traffic.  Her  public  opinion 
sanctified  any  way,  direct  or  indirect,  to  cripple  an  enemy  to  England. 
Thus  millions  of  confiscated  commerce  fell  beneath  her  rapacious  greed. 
Opinion  and  practice  have  changed,  and  England  has  changed  with  them, 
in  a  large  measure.  But  there  is  room  for  still  greater  reform  on  her 


FOREIGN   AFFAIRS.  183 

part,  to;say  nothing  of  the  danger  of  her  relapse,  before  indicated.  Pub 
lic  opinion  and  practice  have  changed,  because  the  relative  commerce  of 
the  world  has  changed  during  the  long  intervals  of  peace  in  Europe  and 
America.  France  has  now  a  navy  nearly  equal  to  that  of  England.  She 
is  no  longer  the  timid  Power  upon  the  sea  which  Nelson  shattered,  and 
which  Napoleon  lamented.  The  commercial  marine  of  this  country  has 
advanced  more  than  fivefold  since  the  Revolution,  and  from  three-quar 
ters  of  a  million  of  tonnage  at  the  close  of  the  late  war  of  1812  to  five 
and  a  half  millions  of  tonnage  at  the  present  time ;  and  of  that  marine 
a  large  part  has,  by  recent  events,  been  inspired  with  the  genius  of 
steam,  is  being  clad  in  armor  of  iron,  and  its  total  tonnage  exceeds  by 
five  hundred  thousand  tons  that  of  our  great  English  rival.  It  is  the  very 
height  of  unwisdom  for  English  laggards  to  rummage  from  old  treatises 
on  international  law,  from  the  proud-mouthed  speeches  uttered  in  Parlia 
ment  about  Britannia  and  the  waves,  and  from  decisions  of  her  admiralty 
courts,  an  obsolete  claim  to  make  herself  the  buccaneer  or  Algerine  of 
the  seas — the  nuisance  and  terror  of  the  ocean.  England  should  rather 
consult  the  wisdom  of  her  best  statesmen,  who,  like  Earl  Grey  in  1856, 
declared  that,  by  the  mere  increase  of  sea-going  ships,  the  right  of  search 
after  the  property  of  belligerents  embarked  on  neutrals  had  become  an 
utter  impracticability,  and  all  that  was  ever  written  by  the  publicists  of 
every  nation  cannot  make  it  practicable.  He  warned  his  nation  then, 
that  if  she  claimed  for  herself  the  right,  she  must  allow  the  same  right 
to  be  exercised  against  her ;  and  as  if  foreseeing  the  Trent  case,  he  said : 

"  How  would  British  shipowners  submit  to  the  exercise  of  such  a  right  if  this  country 
[England]  should  be  placed  in  the  position  of  a  neutral  ?  How  would  they  endure  it, 
that  vessels  from  New  York  or  New  Orleans,  laden  with  cotton,  which  our  manufacturers 
were  anxiously  expecting,  should  be  stopped  by  French  cruisers,  in  case  France  and  the 
United  States  were  at  war,  and  conveyed  to  French  ports,  while  the  French  courts  inquired 
whether  the  cargoes  were  the  property  of  Americans  or  of  Englishmen?" 

Whiles,  therefore,  we  are  becoming,  by  the  pressure  of  domestic  rebel 
lion,  more  able  to  take  care  of  our  interests  at  sea,  with  the  aid  of  gun 
boats  and  steamers  and  a  marine  of  armed  cruisers  and  privateers,  ever 
ready,  so  long  as  private  property  is  not  made  inviolable  to  the  public 
cruisers  of  an  enemy,  England  has  lowered  her  tone  and  altered  her  policy 
to  conform  to  the  changed  relations  which  her  navy  bears  to  the  rest  of 
the  world.  Therefore  no  time  was  ever  more  auspicious  for  the  assemblage 
of  the  maritime  Powers,  to  create,  in  1862,  a  neutral  coalition  like  those 
of  1669  and  1780,  "  which,  by  uniting  in  one  body  all  the  scattered 
forces  of  all  neutrals,  will  secure  to  each  the  respect  and  security  which 
they  cannot  obtain  while  remaining  isolated."  Now  is  the  favorable  time 
from  which  to  date  a  new  epoch  in  international  law,  of  which  the  dis 
tinguishing  feature  shall  be,  a  respect  for  property.  I  would  carry  it  so 
far  as  to  respect  all  the  property  of  an  enemy  not  actually  employed  as 
contraband,  and  even  to  soften  the  rigor  of  those  rules  which  make  con 
traband  as  elastic  in  definition  as  the  strength  which  defines  it  is  power 
ful.  Now  is  the  time  to  fix  the  rules  of  blockade  beyond  cavil — I  mean 
blockade  international.  I  do  not  regard  the  blockade  of  our  o\vn  ports 
as  international.  It  is  a  municipal  regulation  to  put  down  a  rebellion,  as 
to  which  other  nations  are  not  to  be  consulted,  and  over  which,  as  it  is  a 


184  EIGHT   TEAKS    EST   CONGRESS. 

domestic  question,  they  have  no  control.  The  world  may  not  now,  but 
soon  will  be,  ready  to  exempt  all  unfortified  coasts  and  cities  from  block 
ade,  and  all  private  property,  by  land  and  sea,  from  capture,  except  when 
used  to  aid  the  war.  This  would  be  a  corollary  from  the  proposition  to 
give  immunity  to  private  property,  by  limiting  the  war  to  an  armed 
duello  of  nations.  Now  is  the  time  to  stop  powerful  navies  from  irritat 
ing  searches  of  neutral  vessels  on  the  sea,  and  from  conveying  such  ves 
sels  and  the  property  therein  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  States  belliger 
ent  to  distant  ports  for  confiscation.  Now  is  the  time  to  give  vigor  to 
the  maxims  of  Mr.  "Webster,  of  August  8,  1842,  that  the  entry  into  the 
vessel  of  a  neutral  by  a  belligerent  is  like  the  entry  into  its  territory,  is 
an  act  of  force,  and  is,  prima  facie,  a  wrong,  a  trespass,  which  can  only 
be  justified  where  done  for  some  purpose  allowed  to  form  a  sufficient  jus 
tification  by  the  law  of  nations,  whose  sphere  is  the  ocean,  and  under  the 
sanction  of  which  law  any  merchant  vessel  on  the  seas  is  under  the  pro 
tection  of  her  own  nation.  Now  is  the  time  to  give  practical  develop 
ment  to  the  great  American  doctrine,  not  by  adopting  the  Paris  declara 
tions,  unless  as  a  preliminary  step  toward  a  complete  reform  of  the 
maritime  law,  whose  effect  will  free  the  seas  from  the  whirlwinds  and 
maelstroms  of  war,  and  place  in  the  hands  of  commerce  the  palm  and 
the  olive — victory  and  peace  ! 

The  surrender  of  the  insurgent  ambassadors  to  the  demand  of  a  neu 
tral  PoAver  is  of  little  moment,  if  it  be  the  occasion  for  a  settlement  of 
the  law  in  favor  of  neutral  rights.  This  country  would,  in  one  sense,  be 
repaid  for  the  terrible  trials  of  its  present  domestic  conflict,  if  out  of  it 
arises  such  a  policy  as  will  free  the  millions  which  are  every  day  embarked 
upon  the  main  from  the  atrocities  of  war.  If  the  extent  to  which  it  is 
legitimate  to  injure  an  enemy  in  time  of  war,  by  land  and  sea,  shall  be 
defined  in  the  interest  of  humanity  through  our  exertions,  how  magnifi 
cent  will  be  our  reward  !  Millions  yet  unborn  shall  bless  America  !  God 
will  smile  upon  us  with  signal  benignity ! 

One  of  the  topics  cognate  to  that  of  neutral  rights — indeed,  the  prin 
ciple  lying  at  its  root — is  the  amelioration  of  war  by  giving  to  it  such 
laws  as  will  smooth  its  wrinkled  front.  For  this  purpose  a  great  and 
Christian  nation,  either  in  a  congress  of  nations,  or  in  its  domestic  coun 
cils,  might  well  inquire  :  First,  whether,  if  war  come,  it  is  not  desirable 
to  make  it  as  short  as  possible  ;  secondly,  how  to  make  it  short ;  thirdly, 
whether  its  injuries  to  non-combatants,  of  whatever  trade,  age,  condition, 
and  sex,  tend  to  its  brevity  ?  The  result  of  such  inquiries  would  show  to 
the  dispassionate  nations  that  wars  are  not  shortened,  but  prolonged,  by 
rapine,  cruelty,  pillage,  and  revenge.  Such  is  the  history  of  the  savage 
tribes,  and  of  the  middle  ages.  I  heartily  agree  with  the  conclusions  of 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  THOMAS]  who  has  just  spoken, 
and  who  very  happily  reached  the  same  conclusions  to  which  my  own 
thoughts  tend,  with  reference  to  the  rules  of  war  upon  the  land  with 
respect  to  private  property.  All  the  history  of  mankind  shows  that  a 
war  wherein  towns  are  sacked,  property  confiscated,  villages  burned, 
fields  laid  waste,  the  inhabitants  treated  with  contumely,  penalties,  insults, 
and  barbarities,  does  not  hurry,  but  procrastinates  peace.  By  such 
means  the  object  of  the  war,  which  is  peace,  is  frustrated.  Atrocities  are 


FOREIGN  AFFAIRS.  185 

the  seeds  of  future  strife.  They  stimulate  conflict  and  perpetuate  hate. 
Every  such  contest  is  sure  to  be  renewed  when  the  two  antagonists  re 
cover  from  their  exhaustion.  This  reasoning  seems  to  have  been  adopted 
with  regard  to  warfare  upon  the  land  by  all  the  moralists  of  our  time. 
If  true  for  the  land,  why  not  for  the  sea? 

Again  :  war  is  now  an  affair  of  Government,  not  of  individuals.  No 
man  can  now  go  to  war  unless  he  becomes  a  part  of  the  official  organiza 
tion  of  his  Government.  Hence,  no  spoliation  of  the  effects  of  non-com 
batants,  and  no  appropriation  of  individual  property  without  compensa 
tion,  should  be  allowed.  Why  not  adopt  this  doctrine  upon  the  sea,  both 
with  regard  to  public  and  private  armed  vessels?  Reforms  are  being 
made  in  this  connection  by  the  silent  progress  of  opinion  and  the  adjudi 
cations  of  the  courts.  Until  recently  the  theory  and  practice  were,  that 
war  dissolved  contracts  between  individuals.  Private  property  of  ene 
mies  found  in  the  country  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities  was  con 
fiscated.  But  even  an  English  judge,  Lord  Ellenborough,  declared  that 
the  Danish  act  which  confiscated  private  debts  was  illegal.  (6  Maule  & 
Selwyn,  p.  92.)  And  the  great  Powers  of  Europe  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Crimean  war  provided  against  the  spoliation  of  enemies'  property 
found  in  their  ports  at  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities.  The  object  of  re 
form  in  this  matter  is  to  separate  private  citizens,  and  especially  the  pro 
ducing  classes,  from  those  whose  business  it  is  to  carry  on  the  war  ;  and 
to  exempt  the  former  as  much  as  possible  from  the  consequences  of  war. 
This  was  the  declared  object  of  the  American  statesmen,  Franklin, 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Hamilton,  Quincy  Adams,  Clay,  and  Marcy,  in 
the  action  taken  by  them  on  the  occasions  to  which  I  have  referred. 
What  is  now  wanted  is  the  formalization  of  these  doctrines  by  a  congress 
of  the  maritime  Powers. 

This  brings  me  to  the  question  of  privateers.  The  committee  do  not 
favor  their  abolition,  except  it  be  accompanied  with  such  a  reform,  like 
that  proposed  by  Mr.  Marcy,  as  will  obviate  the  necessity  for  their  use  by  a 
nation  like  ours  with  a  large  commerce  and  a  small  navy.  Privateering 
may  be  a  denationalization  of  the  contest  for  private  gain,  but  public 
spoliation  of  private  property  is  none  the  less  detestable.  Both  inflict  great 
injury  upon  one  nation,  without  corresponding  benefit  to  the  other.  In 
our  time,  steam  has  greatly  alleviated  the  injuries  caused  by  privateering. 
Even  that  smart  craft,  the  Sumter,  is  but  an  accident  and  an  exception. 
The  United  States  has  been  willing  to  abolish  privateering,  on  the  prin 
ciple  that  private  property  of  unoffending  non-combatants,  though  enemies, 
should  be  exempt  from  the  ravages  of  war.  This  principle  must  be 
adopted  as  a  principle.  Unless  it  be  adopted  as  a  principle,  there  is 
nothing  gained,  but  much  disadvantage,  inequality,  and  loss.  If  you  dis 
allow  privateers  to  prey  on  private  property,  and  allow  public  vessels  of 
war  to  do  it,  what  principle  is  gained?  The  principle  involved  is  the 
protection  of  property,  not  the  mode  of  its  destruction.  If  you  are  to 
except  property  from  seizure  by  private  armed  vessels,  and  allow  pub 
lic  cruisers  to  do  the  same  thing,  you  might  as  well  say  that  steam 
vessels  should  be  allowed  to  prey  on  private  property,  but  sailing  vessels 
ought  to  be  forbidden.  Indeed,  it  is  far  more  wrongful  to  allow  public 
than  private  vessels  to  commit  such  devastation.  The  American  prin- 


186  EIGHT   TEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

ciple  must  be  adopted,  otherwise  the  surrender  of  privateering  is  only  a 
partial  alleviation  of  the  injuries  to  private  property  on  the  sea.  So  long 
as  private  property  can  be  seized  or  molested  by  public  armed  cruisers,  it 
enjoys  no  immunity ;  it  might  as  well  be  at  the  mercy  of  privateers. 
Says  Mr.  Marcy : 

"  If  such  property  is  to  remain  exposed  to  seizure  by  ships  belonging  to  the  navy  of 
the  adverse  party,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  perceive  why  it  should  not,  in  like  manner, 
be  exposed  to  seizure  by  privateers,  which  are,  in  fact,  but  another  branch  of  the  public 
force  of  the  nation  commissioning  them.  If  it  be  urged  that  a  participation  in  the  prizes 
is  calculated  to  stimulate  cupidity,  that,  as  a  peculiar  objection,  is  removed  by  the  fact 
that  the  same  passion  is  addressed  by  the  distribution  of  prize  money  among  the  officers 
and  ships  of  a  regular  navy." 

Therefore,  Mr.  Marcy  was  in  favor  of  relying  upon  our  mercantile 
marine  to  protect  our  commerce,  until  private  property  received  full  immu 
nity  from  public  armed  vessels  as  well  as  privateers.  He  apprehended 
that,  if  privateers  were  abandoned,  the  dominion  over  the  seas  would  be 
surrendered  to  those  Powers  which  adopt  the  policy  and  which  have  the 
means  of  keeping  up  large  navies.  That  Power  which  has  a  decided  naval 
superiority  would  be  potentially  the  mistress  of  the  ocean.  Hence  Eng 
land  refused  Mr.  Marcy's  proposition.  Hence  France,  Austria,  Prussia, 
Russia,  Italy,  and  other  maritime  Powers  would  accept  it.  For,  if  priva 
teers  were  abolished  and  private  property  were  respected  by  both  public 
and  private  armed  ships,  the  dominion  of  the  ocean  would  be  given  up  to 
the  pursuits  of  peace,  nations  would  find  it  for  their  interest  to  keep  but  a 
small  navy,  and  the  calamities  of  war  would  be  confined  to  belligerents 
themselves,  while  neutrals  would  pursue  their  ordinary  trade  prosperously 
and  unmolested.  In  that  event,  it  would  be  seen  that  it  is  neither  desir 
able,  dignified,  nor  effective  to  injure  the  unoffending  merchant,  and  that 
liberal  concessions  to  neutral  flags  and  neutral  cargoes  would  be  an  advan 
tage  to  the  State  granting  them  as  well  as  to  the  State  with  which  it  was 
at  war.  Then  it  would  be  seen,  too,  that  it  is  neither  chivalric  nor  Chris 
tian  to  involve  individuals  in  the  horrors  of  a  war  in  which  they  took  no 
part,  either  in  its  origin  or  prosecution. 

I  do  not  despair  of  bringing  England  into  the  alliance  for  neutral, 
rights,  at  least  so  far  as  privateering  is  concerned.  She  would  abolish  it 
to-morrow,  so  far  as  the  United  States  are  concerned,  but  she  is  loth  to 
give  up  her  immense  navy,  which  is  our  equivalent  for  the  abolition.  She 
has  a  lively  recollection,  recently  refreshed  by  Mr.  Bright,  of  what  our 
privateers  did  for  her  commerce  in  our  late  war.  In  1814,  her  tonnage 
was  three  million  five  hundred  thousand  tons,  and  her  exports  were 
£40,000,000,  and  her  imports  the  same  ;  and  during  the  two  years  of  that 
war  our  privateers  took  twenty-five  hundred  of  her  ships,  worth  £21,000,- 
000,  or  $107,000,000.  Now,  with  a  tonnage  four  times  as  great,  beAveen 
twelve  and  thirteen  millions  of  tons,  with  imports  and  exports  upwards 
of  £120,000,000,  and  with  the  American  marine  increased  even  more, 
what  might  not  England  suffer  from  our  militia  of  the  sea  ?  Do  you  not 
think  that,  in  fear  of  the  renewal  of  such  consequences,  she  will  be  anxious 
to  make  us  her  belligerent,  or  that,  if  thus  anxious,  she  will  not  agree 
to  relieve  private  property  from  capture  by  public  as  well  as  private 
cruisers  ? 

If  on  land  we  apply  these  principles  to  private  property,  why  should 


FOREIGN   AFRAER8.  187 

we  not  further  limit  the  consequences  of  war  by  lessening  the  objects  of 
its  attack ;  in  other  words,  by  narrowing  the  arena  of  strife  upon  the  sea 
as  well  as  upon  the  land  ;  by  making  war  a  duel  between  combatants  and 
not  a  devastation  of  neutrals  ?     If  we  narrow  the  theatre  of  war  on  land 
to  the  camp  and  beleaguered  fort  or  city,  why  on  the  water  should  it  not 
be  narrowed  to  the  ocean  armament  and  the  blockaded  port  or  assailed 
fort?     If  upon  land  we  do  not  infest  the  tranquil  home  with  violence,  and 
if  the  graces  of  art  and  the  libraries  of  knowledge  are  free  from  the 
spoiler,  why  destroy  the  peaceful  occupations  of  commerce  on  the  sea  in 
the  hot  passions  of  war  ?     Why  place  in  jeopardy  the  immense  trading 
interests  of  nations?     Why  expend  immense  sums  in  insuring  cargoes 
from  the  "king's  enemies"?     Why  place  before  the  cupidity  of  men  or 
nations  the  golden  freightage  of  California  and  Australia,  and  the  steamers 
and  packets  which  connect  Europe  with  America,  and  both  with  the 
Orient?      Why  offer  up   to    a  worse   than    heathen  fury  the  peaceful 
craft  which,  at  great  peril,  supply  our  daily  wants,  and  waft  to  us  the 
teas  and  spices,  sugars  and  silks,  of  the  world?     Why  arouse  the  ardors 
of  war  in  despoiling  neutral  commerce  under  suspicions   of  hostility? 
Why  not  forever  banish  from  that  common  of  the  world — the  free  sea — 
the  prying,  avaricious,  and  revengeful  belligerent,  whether  he  sail  under 
a  letter  of  marque  or  a  legal  commission  as  a  public  cruiser  ?     Why  com 
pel  the  neutral  to  arm,  or  what  is  worse,  to  profit  slyly  by  the  restrictions 
of  war  and  the  chances  of  immunity?     Why  embroil  the  commerce  of 
mankind  with  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  a  quarrel   between   two 
monarchs,  or  a  punctilio  between  two  ministers,  resulting  in  war,  and  a 
war  too  which  would  inflame  other  nations  in  a  general  conflagration  ? 
Why  not  imitate  the  benign  example  of  Providence,  by  ruling  the  raging 
of  the  seas ;  or  the  more  beautiful  example  of  the  Saviour,  who  said  to 
the  tempestuous  waves,  "  Peace,  be  still !  "     How  eminently  desirable, 
therefore,  it  is  to  prevent  such  calamities  by  fixed  and  authoritative  rules 
of  international  conduct !     How  desirable  for  belligerents  !     How  much 
more  so  for  neutrals  !     Such  reforms  as  I  have  indicated  must  be  the 
product  of  public  opinion.     In  this  age,  the  empire  of  opinion  is  only  di 
vided  by  the  reign  of  that  universal  conscience  which  is  informed  and  in 
spired  by  its  teachings.     When  these  influences  rule  in  the  cabinets  and 
councils  of  nations,  we  may  hail  their  supremacy  as  the  "  instauratio 
magna  "  of  juridical  reason  in  the  world  of  nations.     For  the  purpose 
of  contributing  to  that  opinion  and  conscience,  which  is  the  source  of  the 
law  of  nations,  and  of  expressing  the  judgment  of  the  American  Con 
gress  and  people,  the  Committee  wrili  report  back  the  resolutions  last  re 
ferred  to  them,  with  an  amendment,  thanking  the  other  Powers  besides 
France,  for  their  liberal  sympathy  in  behalf  of  neutral  rights.     I  trust 
that  the  American  Congress  will  adopt  them,  and  thus  vindicate  and 
elevate  into  its  proper  place  the  great  American  doctrine,  which  would 
enfranchise  commerce,  guarantee  peace,  and  give  an  impulse  to  civiliza 
tion. 


IV. 
SECESSION. 

SECESSION  REFUTED  AND  DENOUNCED PLEA  FOR  COMPROMISE WARNINGS 

TO  NORTH  AND  SOUTH WAR  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES   PREDICTED THE 

MISSISSIPPI   RIVER APPEAL  FOR  NATIONALITY. 

THIS  speech  was  delivered  in  the  midst  of  the  excitement  of  .actual  se 
cession.  It  was  a  difficult  duty  for  a  Representative,  who  stood  between 
the  extremes  and  appealed  to  them  for  moderation,  to  reach  a  class  of 
men  whose  characteristics  were  immoderation  and  violence.  Anxious  to 
keep  the  peace  and  avert  war,  and  at  the  same  time  unyielding  as  to  the 
Union,  I  was  compelled  to  Aveigh  carefully  each  word,  lest  what  was 
intended  for  oil  on  the  waters,  might  be  oil  on  the  flames.  This  speech 
was  delivered  January  6,  1861. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  :  I  speak  from  and  for  the  capital  of  the  greatest  of 
the  States  of  the  great  West.  That  potential  section  is  beginning  to  be 
appalled  at  the  colossal  strides  of  revolution.  It  has  immense  interests 
at  stake  in  this  Union,  as  well  from  its  position  as  its  power  and  patriot 
ism.  We  have  had  infidelity  to  the  Union  before,  but  never  in  such  a 
fearful  shape.  We  had  it  in  the  East  during  the  late  war  with  England. 
Even  so  late  as  the  admission  of  Texas,  Massachusetts  resolved  herself  out 
of  the  Union.  That  resolution  has  never  been  repealed;  and  one  would 
infer,  from  much  of  her  conduct,  that  she  did  not  regard  herself  as  bound 
by  our  covenant.  Since  1856,  in  the  North,  we  have  had  infidelity  to  the 
Union,  more  by  insidious  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  than  by  open 
rebellion.  Now,  sir,  as  a  consequence,  in  part,  of  these  very  infractions, 
we  have  rebellion  itself,  open  and  daring,  in  terrific  proportions,  with 
dangers  so  formidable  as  to  seem  almost  remediless. 

From  the  time  I  took  my  seat  this  session,  I  have  acted  and  voted  in 
every  way  to  remove  the  causes  of  discontent  and  to  stop  the  progress  of  rev 
olution.  At  the  threshold,  I  voted  to  raise  the  committee  from  each  State  ; 
and  I  voted  against  excusing  the  members  who  sought  to  withdraw  from 
it,  because  I  believed  then  that  such  a  committee,  patriotically  constituted, 
had  in  it  much  of  hope  and  safety  ;  and  because,  to  excuse  members  from 


SECESSION.  189 

serving  on  it,  upon  the  ground  of  secession,  was  to  recognize  the  heresy. 
I  ain  ready  to  vote  now  for  any  salutary  measure  which  will  bring  peace 
and  preserve  the  Union.  Herodotus  relates  that  when  Mardonius  was 
encamped  in  Bceotia,  before  the  battle  of  Plataea,  he  and  fifty  of  his  offi 
cers  were  invited  to  meet  the  same  number  of  Thebans  at  a  banquet,  at 
which  they  reclined  in  pairs,  a  Persian  and  a  Theban  upon  each  couch. 
During  the  entertainment  one  of  the  Persian^,  with  many  tears,  predicted 
to  his  Theban  companion  the  speedy  and  utter  destruction  of  the  invading 
army,  and  when  asked  why  he  used  no  influence  with  Mardonius  to  avert 
it,  he  answered : 

"  When  one  would  give  faithful  counsel,  nobody  is  willing  to  believe  him.  Although 
many  of  us  Persians  are  aware  of  the  end  we  are  coming  to,  we  still  go  on,  because  we 
are  bound  to  our  destiny ;  and  this  is  the  very  bitterest  of  a  man's  griefs,  to  see  clearly, 
but  to  have  no  power  to  do  any  thing  at  all." 

I  believe,  sir,  that  the  events  now  transpiring  are  big  with  disaster  to 
my  country.  I  have  done  my  humble  part  for  years  to  prevent  them  ; 
but  I  do  not  see  now  that  any  effort  on  my  part  can  avail ;  and  this  is  the 
bitterest  of  a  man's  grief.  It  is  in  such  a  peril  as  this  that  the  heart  spon 
taneously  prays  for  a  nearer  communication  with  a  divine  prescience. 
We  long  for  some  direction  from  a  superior  power,  in  whose  great  mind 
the  end  is  seen  from  the  beginning.  At  least,  one  might  wish  for  some 
magic  mirror  of  Merlin,  in  which  to  see  the  foes  of  our  country  approach, 
so  as  rightly  to  guard  against  them. 

Four  States  have,  in  so  far  as  they  could  by  their  own  act,  separated 
from  our  Federal  Union.  This  is  one  of  the  stern  facts  which  this  Congress 
has  to  encounter.  The  Government  is  passing  through  one  of  those  his 
toric  epochs  incident  to  all  nationalities.  Our  prosperity  has  made  us 
proud,  rich,  intolerant,  and  self-sufficient ;  and  therefore  prone  to  be  re 
bellious.  We  have  waxed  fat — are  doing  well,  "  tempestuously  well." 
Ascending  to  the  height  of  national  glory,  through  national  unity,  we  are 
in  danger  of  falling  by  our  own  dizziness.  We  are  called  upon  to  break 
down  and  thrust  aside  the  very  means  of  our  ascent — the  Constitution 
itself. 

In  such  a  time,  the  bitter  crimination  and  vain  threats  of  party  and 
of  sections  are  out  of  place.  They  should  not  turn  the  people  of  the 
North  from  doing  their  whole  duty  to  the  South  ;  nor  the  South  from  a 
more  deliberate  review  of  its  past,  and  a  more  prudential  view  of  its  per 
ilous  future.  No  man  has  the  right  to  say  or  do  aught  that  will  further 
exasperate  the  public  sentiment  of  the  South.  No  good  man  in  the  North 
can  oppose  any  measure  of  honorable  recession  from  wrong.  I  cannot 
speak  of  South  Carolina  in  the  tone  and  temper  of  some.  She  has  been 
a  part  of  our  national  life.  Her  blood  is  in  our  veins ;  her  Marions, 
Sumters,  and  Pinckneys  are  ours.  Eutaw,  Cowpens,  and  Camden  ;  are 
they  not  a  part  of  that  glory,  which  can  no  more  be  separated  from  the 
Union  than  the  dawn  from  the  sun  !  Whatever  may  be  our  indignation 
against  her,  or  our  duty  to  ourselves,  let  us  remember  that  public  senti 
ment  is  not  to  be  reached  by  threat  or  denunciation.  Our  Government 
depends  for  its  execution  on  public  sentiment.  To  that  sentiment  alone, 
in  its  calmer  mood,  are  we  to  look  for  a  restoration  of  a  better  feeling. 
When  that  feeling  comes,  it  will  be  hailed  like  the  sea-bird  which  visited 


190  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

the  sea-tossed  caravel  of  Columbus — as  the  harbinger  of  a  firm-set  foot- 
ing  beyond.  Other  facts  of  a  similar  perilous  character  will  soon  trans 
pire.  Georgia,  Texas,  and  Louisiana  will  assuredly  follow  the  erratic 
course  of  South  Carolina.  This  fact  must  soon  be  encountered.  South 
Carolina  has  been  singing  her  Marseillaise,  and  the  waves  of  the  Gulf 
make  accordant  music  in  the  revolutionary  anthem.  It  but  echoes  the 
abolitionism  of  the  North  and  West ;  for  scarcely  had  the  song  died  away 
on  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie,  before  South  Carolina  took  it  up  with  a 
wilder  chorus  !  Extremes  thus  meet.  Extremes  north  have  aided,  if  not 
conspired  with,  extremes  south,  in  the  work  of  disintegration. 

That  work  will  go  on.  I  know  that  we  are  very  slow  to  believe  in 
any  sign  of  dissolution.  We  have  faith  in  our  luck.  We  have  trust  in 
a  certain  inventive  faculty,  which  has  never  yet  failed  us,  either  in  me 
chanical  or  political  expedients.  Our  politics  are  plastic  to  emergencies. 
Still  I  must  warn  the  people  that  it  is  the  well-grounded  fear,  almost  the 
foregone  conclusion  of  the  patriotic  statesmen  here,  that  the  work  of 
breaking  up  will  go  on,  until  the  entire  South  shall  be  arrayed  against  the 
entire  North. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  will  discuss  these  propositions :  1 .  That  se 
cession  is  not  a  right  in  any  possible  relation  in  which  it  can  be  viewed  ; 
to  tolerate  it  in  theory  or  practice  is  moral  treason  to  patriotism  and  good 
government.  2.  That  while  it  may  not  involve  such  direful  consequences 
as  other  revolutions,  still  it  is  revolution.  3.  That  every  effort  of  concil 
iation  should  be  exhausted  to  check  it,  before  force  is  applied.  4.  That 
if  the  North  does  not  do  her  part  fully  in  recession  from  aggression,  it 
will  be  impossible  to  unite  the  northern  people,  or  any  portion  of  the 
southern  people,  in  repressing  secession.  5.  That  if  the  South  will  make 
a  patient  endeavor,  equal  to  the  great  occasion,  to  secure  her  rights  in  the 
Union,  I  believe  that  she  will  succeed ;  and  if  she  is  then  repulsed,  it  will 
be  impossible  for  her  to  receive  any  detriment  from  the  Nortli ;  but  she 
will  depart  in  peace.  6.  If  she  go  inconsiderately,  as  some  States  are 
going,  the  country  may  incur  the  fearful  hazard  of  war.  7.  If  the  South 
press  the  one  hard  overmastering  question  upon  the  North,  and  follow  it 
up  with  seizure  of  forts  and  revenue,  cannonading  of  our  vessels,  and 
other  aggressive  acts,  without  giving  an  opportunity  for  conciliation,  there 
will  be  no  power  in  the  conservatism  of  the  North  to  restrain  the  people. 
No  sacrifice  will  be  considered  too  great  to  make  in  the  protection  and 
defence  of  the  Union.  8.  That,  in  the  present  state  of  facts,  so  long  as 
the  revenues  can  be  collected  on  land  or  sea,  and  the  forts  and  harbors 
can  be  commanded  by  the  Federal  Government,  that  Government  must 
be,  as  to  these  matters,  the  Government  de  facto,  as  well  as  de  jure  ;  and 
that  so  long  as  this  status  can  be  maintained  by  the  Executive,  it  should 
be  done  by  all  the  legal  forces  of  the  Government. 

I  would  not  exaggerate  the  fearful  consequences  of  dissolution.  It  is 
the  breaking  up  of  a  Federative  Union  ;  but  it  is  not  like  the  breaking  up 
of  society.  It  is  not  anarchy.  A  link  may  fall  from  the  chain,  and  the 
link  may  still  be  perfect,  though  the  chain  have  lost  its  length  and  its 
strength.  In  the  uniformity  of  commercial  regulations,  in  matters  of  war 
and  peace,  postal  arrangements,  foreign  relations,  coinage,  copyrights, 
tariff,  and  other  Federal  and  national  affairs,  this  great  Government  may 


SECESSION.  191 

be  broken ;  but  in  most  of  the  essential  liberties  and  rights  which 
Government  is  the  agent  to  establish  and  protect,  the  seceding  State  has 
no  revolution,  and  the  remaining  States  can  have  none.  This  arises  from 
that  refinement  of  our  polity  which  makes  the  States  the  basis  of  our 
instituted  order.  Greece  was  broken  by  the  Persian  power  ;  but  her  mu 
nicipal  institutions  remained.  Hungary  has  lost  her  national  crown  ;  but 
her  home  institutions  remain.  South  Carolina  may  preserve  her  consti 
tuted  domestic  authority ;  but  she  must  be  content  to  glimmer  obscurely 
remote,  rather  than  shine  and  revolve  in  a  constellated  band.  She  even 
goes  out  by  the  ordinance  of  a  so-called  sovereign  convention,  content  to 
lose,  by  her  isolation,  that  youthful,  vehement,  exultant,  progressive  life, 
which  is  our  NATIONALITY  !  She  foregoes  the  hopes,  the  boasts,  the  flags, 
the  music,  all  the  emotions,  all  the  traits,  and  all  the  energies,  which, 
when  combined  in  our  United  States,  have  won  our  victories  in  war  and 
our  miracles  of  national  advancement.  Her  Governor,  Colonel  Pickens, 
in  his  inaugural,  regretfully  "  looks  back  upon  the  inheritance  South  Car 
olina  had  in  the  common  glories  and  triumphant  power  of  this  wonderful 
Confederacy,  and  fails  to  find  language  to  express  the  feelings  of  the 
human  heart  as  he  turns  from  the  contemplation."  The  ties  of  brother 
hood,  interests,  lineage,  and  history,  are  all  to  be  severed.  No  longer 
are  we  to  salute  a  South  Carolinian  with  the  "  idem  sententiam  de  repub- 
lica"  which  makes  unity  and  nationality.  What  a  prestige  and  glory  are 
here  dimmed  and  lost  in  the  contaminated  reason  of  man  ! 

Can  we  realize  it?  Is  it  a  masquerade,  to  last  for  a  night,  or  a  real 
ity  to  be  managed  with  rough,  passionate  handling?  It  is  sad  and  bad 
enough  ;  but  let  us  not  overtax  our  anxieties  about  it  as  yet.  It  is  not 
the  sanguinary  regimen  of  the  French  revolution ;  not  the  rule  of  assig- 
nats  and  guillotine  ;  not  the  cry  of  "  Vivent  les  Rouges  !  A  mort  les  gen 
darmes  !  "  but  as  yet,  I  hope  I  may  say,  the  peaceful  attempt  to  withdraw 
from  the  burdens  and  benefits  of  the  Republic.  Thus  it  is  unlike  every 
other  revolution.  Still  it  is  revolution.  It  may,  according  as  it  is  man 
aged,  involve  consequences  more  terrific  than  any  revolution  since  govern 
ment  began. 

If  the  Federal  Government  is  to  be  maintained,  its  strength  must  not 
be  frittered  away  by  conceding  the  theory  of-  secession.  To  concede  se 
cession  as  a  right,  is  to  make  its  pathway  one  of  roses,  and  not  of 
thorns.  I  would  not  make  its  pathway  so  easy.  If  the  Government  has 
any  strength  for  its  own  preservation,  the  people  demand  it  should  be  put 
forth  in  its  civil  and  moral  forces.  Dealing,  however,  with  a  sensitive 
public  sentiment,  in  which  this  strength  reposes,  it  must  not  be  rudely 
exercised.  It  should  be  the  iron  hand  in  a  glove  of  velvet.  Firmness 
should  be  allied  with  kindness.  Power  should  assert  its  own  prerogative, 
but  in  the  name  of  law  and  love.  If  these  elements  are  not  thus  blended 
in  our  policy,  as  the  Executive  purposes,  our  Government  will  prove  either 
a  garment  of  shreds  or  a  coat  of  mail.  We  want  neither. 

Our  forts  have  been  seized  ;  our  property  taken  ;  our  flag  torn  down  ; 
our  laws  defied ;  our  jurisdiction  denied  ;  and,  that  worst  phase  of  rev 
olution,  our  ship  sent  under  our  flag  to  the  relief  of  a  soldier  doing  his 
duty,  fired  upon  and  refused  an  entrance  at  one  of  our  own  harbors. 
Would  that  were  all !  The  President  informs  us,  in  his  last  message, 
that — 


192  EIGHT  YEAES   IN  CONGRESS. 

"  In  States  which  have  not  seceded,  the  forts,  arsenals,  and  magazines  of  the  United 
States  have  been  seized.  This  is  far  the  most  serious  step  which  has  been  taken  since  the 
commencement  of  the  troubles.  This  public  property  has  long  been  left  without  garrisons 
and  troops  for  its  protection,  because  no  person  doubted  its  security  under  the  flag  of  the 
country  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  Besides,  our  small  army  has  scarcely  been  suffi 
cient  to  guard  our  remote  frontiers  against  the  Indian  incursions.  The  seizure  of  this 
property,  from  all  appearances,  has  been  purely  aggressive,  and  not  in  resistance  to  any  at 
tempt  to  coerce  a  State  or  States  to  rewain  in  the  Union,1'' 

All  that  the  President  has  done  is  defensive  ;  all  that  he  has  resisted 
has  been  aggression.  He  proposes  no  aggression  ;  nor  would  I  favor  it. 
He  would  maintain  the  laws  and  protect  property ;  what  else  can  he  do  ? 

These  facts  have  to  be  met — how  ?  By  the  conquest  of  all  the  people 
of  a  State?  By  the  declaration  and  wager  of  war  ?  I  answer,  by  the  en 
forcement  of  the  laws  and  the  protection  of  our  property  in  a  constitutional 
manner.  This  is  the  answer  I  have  already  voted  in  this  House,  in  vot 
ing  for  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  New  Jersey.  But  is  it  asked, 
how  will  you  enforce  the  laws  and  keep  forts  and  property,  without  war? 
I  will  answer :  First,  repeal  here  every  law  making  ports  of  entry  at  the 
recusant  cities  or  towns ;  and  thus  avoid  as  much  trouble  as  possible. 
That  is  in  our  power.  Second,  libel  and  confiscate  in  admiralty  every 
vessel  which  leaves  such  ports  without  the  Federal  clearance.  Third, 
collect  the  revenue  and  preserve  the  property,  and  only  use  such  force  as 
will  maintain  the  defensive.  But  again  it  is  asked,  is  not  this  coercion 
against  a  Government  de  facto,  established  by  the  consent  of  all  the  peo 
ple  of  a  State  under  an  assumed  legal  right  ?  I  answer,  South  Carolina 
is  not  de  facto  the  Government  as  to  these  Federal  matters,  so  long  as  the 
Federal  Government  can  hold  her  harbors,  shut  in  her  ships,  and  collect 
the  revenue.  Who  can  deny  that  proposition  ?  But  still  it  is  asked,  will 
not  the  use  of  force  in  executing  the  laws,  and  preserving  our  property, 
result  in  civil  war?  Is  there  any  practical  difference  between  the  enforce 
ment  of  law  when  resisted  by  so  large  an  aggressive  power,  and  the  ac 
tual  state  of  war  ?  Here  is  the  Sphinx  of  our  present  anomalous  situation. 
I  do  not  choose  now  to  say  what  I  will  do,  in  case  a  certain  result  fol 
lows  the  performance  of  the  present  duty.  It  is  enough  for  me  now  to  do 
that  duty  of  the  present.  But  that  judgment  which  makes  no  discrimina 
tion  between  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  and  defence  of  property,  and  the 
actual  state  of  war,  must  be  palsied  by  undue  fear  of  consequences.  There 
is  nothing  more  plainly  distinguished  by  precedent  and  in  experience,  than 
the  difference  between  the  civil  authority  and  the  war-making  power.  True, 
the  military  arm  may  be  invoked  to  aid  the  civil  authority,  but  it  must  be 
subordinate  to  it  in  many  most  essential  particulars.  It  is  then  the  sword 
of  the  magistrate,  and  not  of  the  soldier.  Says  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in 
the  Rhode  Island  case : 

"  Unquestionably,  a  State  may  use  its  military  power  to  put  down  an  armed  insurrec 
tion  too  strong  to  be  controlled  by  the  civil  authority.  The  power  is  essential  to  the  ex 
istence  of  every  Government ;  essential  to  the  preservation  of  order  and  free  institutions ; 
and  is  as  necessary  to  the  States  of  this  Union,  as  to  any  other  Government." — 7  How- 
ardr45. 

This  Government  has  had  insurrections,  and  has  quelled  them  by  the 
civil  authority,  with  the  aid  of  the  militia,  and  without  martial  law. 
The  Shays  rebellion  and  the  whiskey  insurrection  were  put  down  by  the 


SECESSION.  193 

posse  comitatus.  *The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  not  suspended  by  the 
United  States.  But,  even  in  extreme  cases,  where  the  President  called 
out  the  militia  to  suppress  actual  array  and  violence,  without  a  law  of 
Congress  authorizing  it,  the  force  was  only  to  be  used  with  a  view  to 
cause  the  laws  to  be  duly  executed.  All  arrests  were  made  under  civil 
authority.  Trials  were  had  as  in  civil  cases.  In  Pennsylvania,  in  1793. 
the  expedition  was  not  in  its  nature  belligerent ;  but  it  was  to  assist  the 
marshal.  (7  Howard.  80  and  81.)  Washington  enjoined  strictly  the 
subordination  of  the  military  to  the  civil  power,  and  went  in  person  to  see 
that  his  orders  were  obeyed.  The  very  genius  and  structure  of  our  Con 
stitution  would  forbid  the  making  of  war,  in  its  sense  of  aggression,  against 
any  State  of  the  Confederacy.  But,  unless  the  power  to  enforce  reside 
somewhere  in  the  Government,  it  is  virtually  no  government  at  all.  It  is 
a  garment  of  shreds.  If  the  force  is  of  that  irresponsible  kind  called  war, 
the  Government  is  then  worse  than  a  failure.  It  then  wears  a  coat  of 
mail.  But  if  it  have  the  force  to  maintain  itself,  and  subordinate  to  itself 
the  military  which  it  may  use  in  its  defence,  then  it  is  a  government.  It 
then  wears  the  robe  of  State  ! 

The  time  does  not  yet  call  for  threats  of  coercion  by  martial  or  other 
means.  It  only  calls  for  defence  from  those  who  are  aggressive.  I  would 
reserve  this  power  of  coercion,  as  King  Arthur  did  his  diamond  shield. 
He  ever  kept  it  out  of  sight  covered  with  a  veil,  and  only  uncovered  it  to 
fight  monsters  and  alien  enemies. 

I  call  this  secession,  revolution.  I  will  not  in  an  American  Congress, 
with  an  oath  on  my  conscience  to  support  the  Constitution,  argue  the  right 
to  secede.  No  such  right  can  ever  be  had,  except  by  amendment  of  the 
Constitution,  legalizing  such  secession.  It  is  a  solecism  to  speak  of  the 
right  of  secession.  It  is  revolution  ;  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  him 
who  begins  it,  to  show  why  he  seeks  the  change.  The  combined  reason 
of  the  ages  has  fixed  in  its  maxims  of  thought,  rules  to  govern  the  actions 
of  men  and  nations,  which  no  one  can  overrule  without  great  criminality. 
These  rules  require  first  that  revolution  must  have  no  light  and  transient 
cause.  To  overthrow  a  despotism,  the  causes  must  be  of  grave  weight. 
A  fortiori,  what  must  be  the  grievance  to  justify  a  revolt  against  a  Govern 
ment  so  free  as  ours !  Besides,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  hope  of  a 
happy  and  successful  termination.  Otherwise  history,  with  her  judicial 
prescript,  will  ban  those  who  begin  it  to  an  eternity  of  retribution. 

There  must  be  in  every  State  some  power  to  which  all  others  yield, 
competent  to  meet  every  emergency.  No  nation  can  be  consigned  to 
anarchy  by  some  absurd  contrivance,  either  in  the  shape  of 'personal  lib 
erty  bills  or  secession  ordinances.  In  America,  we  have  a  national  Con 
stitution.  Under  it,  we  have  United  States  citizenship.  To  it  we  owe 
and  swear  allegiance.  It  may  be  a  compact ;  but  it  is  a  government 
also.  It  may  be  a  league  ;  but  it  has  authority,  "  operative,"  as  Mr. 
Madison  holds,  "  directly  on  the  people."  It  may  reach  States  as  States  ; 
but  it  does  more  ;  it  reaches  the  people  of  the  States  through  its  execu 
tive,  judicial,  and  legislative  departments.  If  it  cannot  declare  war  against 
a  State,  it  is  because  a  State  is  a  part  of  itself,  and  not  quoad  hoc  a  for 
eign  and  independent  State.  Its  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land;  and  though,  as  Chief  Justice  Marshall  says  (1  Wheaton,  304), 
13 


194  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

"  the  sovereign  powers  vested  in  the  State  governments  by  their  respective 
constituencies  remain  unaltered  and  unimpaired,  yet  they  remain  so,  ex 
cept  so  far  as  they  were  granted  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States." 
I  could  cite  Marshall,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  Story,  Duer,  and 
Webster,  almost  every  student,  expounder,  and  executor  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  to  show  these  conclusions  to  be  irrefragable.  It  is  an  absurdity  to 
contend  that  States,  which  voluntarily  surrendered  such  portions  of  their 
sovereignties  as  were  requisite  for  a  national  government,  can  be  the  equal 
in  power  of  that  national  government.  In  the  name  of  the  people,  the 
Constitution  asserts  its  own  supremacy  and  that  of  the  laws  made  in  pur 
suance  thereof.  It  is  supreme,  by  the  consent  of  South  Carolina  herself, 
"  over  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  several  States."  If,  then,  South 
Carolina  attempt,  as  she  has  by  her  ordinance,  to  annul  her  connection 
with  this  national  system,  does  she  not  usurp  a  power  of  the  General 
Government  ?  Does  she  not  infringe  on  the  rights  of  Ohio  ?  Is  it  not 
a  plain  violation  of  the  permanent  obligation  she  is  under  as  one  of  its 
members?  Nay,  she  not  only  breaks  her  oath  of  fealty  to  the  United 
States  Constitution,  but  she  breaks  her  oath  to  her  own  constitution, 
which  requires  that  oath. 

Am  I  referred  by  members  of  my  own  party  to  our  platform  and 
principles  indorsing  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  resolutions  ?  Am  I  told 
that  the  sacred  principles  of  State  rights  declared  by  Jefferson  and  Mad 
ison,  as  a  check  against  the  usurpations  of  a  consolidated  Federal  Power, 
allow  that  each  State  may  so  judge  of  the  infraction  of  the  Constitution, 
and  the  means  and  measures  of  redress,  that  it  may  go  out  of  the  Union? 
These  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  are  misinterpreted.  Judge 
Marshall,  however  federal  his  views,  in  a  letter  to  Judge  Story  of  July 
31,  1833  (Story's  Life  and  Letters,  p.  135),  is  an  honest  witness  to  this 
misinterpretation.  He  says : 

"  The  word  '  State  rights,'  as  expounded  by  the  resolutions  of  1798  and  the  report  of 
1799,  construed  by  our  Legislature,  has  a  charm  against  which  all  reasoning  is  vain. 
Those  resolutions  and  that  report  constitute  the  creed  of  every  politician  who  hopes  to 
rise  in  Virginia ;  and  to  question  them,  or  even  to  adopt  the  construction  given  by  their 
author,  is  deemed  political  sacrilege." 

This  Government  was  intended  to  be  perpetual.  It  was  adopted  in 
toto,  and  forever.  Says  Mr.  Madison:  "The  idea  of  reserving  the 
right  to  withdraw  was  started,  considered,  and  abandoned ;  worse  than 
rejected."  Judge  Marshall  says  :  "  The  instrument  was  nof  intended 
to  provide  merely  for  the  exigencies  of  a  few  years,  but  was  to  endure 
through  a  long  lapse  of  ages,  the  events  of  which  were  locked^up  in  the  in 
scrutable  decrees  of  Providence."  It  was,  therefore,  provided  with  means 
for  its  own  amendment.  By  the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the 
States,  there  is  a  means  of  amendment ;  and  in  that  way  alone  can  a 
State  withdraw.  Nullification  and  secession,  said  Mr.  Madison,  are  twin 
heresies,  and  should  be  buried  in  the  same  grave.  General  Jackson  held 
that  secession  does  not  break  a  league,  but  it  destroys  the  unity  of 
a  nation ;  hence,  he  argued  that  it  is  an  offence  against  the  whole  Union. 
To  say  that  a  State  may  constitutionally  secede,  is  to  say  that  the  consti 
tutional  elements  were  poisoned  at  the  birth  of  the  nation,  and,  of  malice 
prepense,  were  intended  to  kill  our  national  life  !  Such  reasoning  over- 


SECESSION.  195 

throws  all  government.  It  is  to  affirm  that  the  tribunal  appointed  for 
the  arbitrament  of  mooted  questions  under  the  Constitution,  or  that  the 
means  for  its  own  amendment,  shall  be  set  aside  at  the  pleasure  of  one 
of  the  parties  to  be  affected.  Monstrous  sophistry  !  Are  gentlemen  of  the 
South  aware  that  it  is  from  this  twin  heresy  that  the  Republicans  have 
drawn  their  arguments  for  their  personal  liberty  bills  and  for  their  re 
pudiation  of  the  fugitive  slave  law  ?  The  very  chief  justice  of  Ohio,  so 
recently  reindorsed  for  his  seditious  decision  in  the  Oberlin  fugitive  case, 
bases  his  adjudication  on  the  usurpations  of  the  Federal  Government. 
He,  like  South  Carolina,  denies  that  "the  decisions  of  the  usurping  party, 
in  favor  of  the  validity  of  its  own  assumptions,  can  settle  anything." 
(Exparte  Bushnell,  9  Ohio  State  Reports,  227.)  He  warns  against  the 
"  practical  omnipotence  of  the  Federal  Government  by  making  authorita 
tive  the  judgment  of  its  judicial  tribunals."  He  sang  the  Marseillaise  in 
his  ermine  from  the  supreme  bench,  as  South  Carolina  sings  it  in  her 
convention. 

I  would,  therefore,  guard  against  the  least  recognition  of  this  right  of 
secession,  or  of  nullification,  which  is  the  lesser  type  of  the  same  disease. 
It  would,  I  say,  destroy  all  government.  It  would  dissolve  the  united 
mass  of  powers  now  deposited  in  the  Union  into  thirty-three  separate  and 
conflicting  States  ;  each  with  a  flag,  a  tariff,  an  army,  a  foreign  policy,  a 
diversity  of  interests,  and  an  idiosyncrasy  of  ideas.  Nay,  that  would  be 
tolerable  ;  but  it  would  do  more  and  worse.  It  would  disintegrate  States, 
counties,  towns ;  tear  cities  from  their  places  on  the  map  ;  disorder  finan 
ces,  taxes,  revenue,  tariffs ;  and  convert  this  fabric,  now  so  fair  and  firm 
that  it  seems  built  on  the  earth's  base,  and  pillared  with  the  firmament, 
into  a  play-house  of  cards,  built  on  a  base  of  stubble.  It  would  thus  de 
stroy  the  established  order.  And  is  such  order  among  men,  with  a  view 
to  permanency,  nothing?  The  North  has  rights,  property,  interests,  re 
lations  in  the  South,  not  to  be  sundered  without  loss ;  and  the  South  in 
the  North,  vice  versa.  Is  this  nothing  ?  Is  depreciation  of  property,  de 
pression  of  business,  loss  and  lack  of  employment,  withdrawal  of  capital, 
derangement  of  currency,  increase  of  taxes,  miscarriage  of  public  works 
and  enterprise,  destruction  of  State  credit,  the  loss  of  that  national  sym 
metry,  geography,  strength,  name,  honor,  unity,  and  glory,  which  publi 
cists  tell  us  are  themselves  the  creators  and  guardians  of  cash,  credit,  and 
commerce — are  these  consequences  nothing?  Surely  such  a  mass  of 
complicated  interests — the  growth  of  years,  clinging,  with  root  and  fibre, 
to  the  eternal  rocks  of  public  stability — cannot  be  uptorii  without  great 
struggle  and  stupendous  crime. 

I  wish  that  I  could  contemplate  secession  as  a  peaceful  remedy.  But 
I  cannot.  It  must  be  a  forcible  disruption.  The  Government  is  framed 
so  compactly  in  all  its  parts,  that  to  tear  away  one  part,  you  tear  the 
whole  fabric  asunder.  It  cannot  be  done  by  consent.  There  is  no  au 
thority  to  give  consent.  The  Constitution  looks  to  no  catastrophe  of  the 
kind.  It  is  a  voluntary,  violent,  and  ex  parte  proceeding.  A  majority  of 
the  States,  and  a  great  majority  of  the  people,  are  hostile  to  it.  In  this 
angry  and  warlike  disruption  of  the  compact,  where  shall  we  find  our 
more  perfect  Union,  the  establishment  of  justice,  domestic  tranquillity, 
provision  for  the  common  defence,  the  promotion  of  the  general  welfare, 


196  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

and  the  security  of  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  posterity  ?  In 
this  light,  the  ordinance  of  South  Carolina  becomes  an  offence  ;  and  in 
case  a  sufficient  number  of  others  followed,  to  the  injury  of  any,  it  would 
be  worse  than  an  offence.  In  the  cases  of  Texas  and  Florida,  Louisiana 
and  California,  for  which  millions  were  paid,  the  inquiry  would  be  made 
whether  it  would  not  be  a  fraud  so  colossal  that  neither  language  nor  law 
can  measure  it. 

Mr.  REAGAN.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  when  a  dollar  has  been 
paid  for  Texas  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  cannot  give  way.  My  time  is  limited.  Besides,  the 
same  question  was  asked  in  the  Senate ;  and  Judge  DOUGLAS  answered 
it.  The  country  knows  both  question  and  answer.  I  proceed.  If,  then, 
South  Carolina  can  dispense  with  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  to 
which  she  solemnly  acceeded  on  the  23d  of  May,  1788,  cannot  she  dis 
pense  with  other  portions  of  that  instrument ;  ay,  even  with  this  American 
Congress  ?  The  whole  framework  of  our  Government,  by  the  action  of 
separate  States,  may. thus  be  swept  away.  This  Congress  may  be  dis 
solved,  if  not  by  the  military  usurpation  which  dissolved  the  Long  Par 
liament,  or  expelled  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred  from  the  Orangery  of 
St.  Cloud,  yet  by  the  very  impotence  of  its  organism,  as  the  Confedera 
tion  dissolved  under  its  imperfect  articles,  to  give  place  to  this  more  per 
fect  Union ! 

What  justification  does  South  Carolina  offer  for  this  act?  "Fifteen 
States,"  says  her  declaration,  "  have  deliberately  refused  for  years  to  fulfil 
their  constitutional  obligations."  It  refers  to  the  fourth  article  of  the  Con 
stitution  for  the  specific  cause  of  grievance.  But  is  there  not  now,  since 
the  vote  in  this  House  the  other  day  on  the  personal  liberty  bills,  when 
the  demands  of  returning  public  justice  made  even  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  LOVEJOY]  recede  from  his  ultraism,  a  reasonable  hope  of 
curing  these  evils  ?  Again  :  is  there  not  the  Supreme  Court,  as  to  whose 
fidelity  no  question  is  raised  in  the  South  ?  And  are  these  peculiar  wrongs 
remediless  in  that  forum  ?  The  Governor  of  Kentucky  has  already  ar 
raigned  the  recreant  executive  of  Ohio  for  his  delinquency  under  a  kindred 
Constitutional  clause.  Why  may  you  not  exhaust  your  remedies  in  the 
courts  before  you  raise  the  ensign  of  revolt?  If  you  would  have  public 
opinion  correct  the  errors  of  the  North  as  to  fugitives  from  justice  and 
labor,  already  assurances  come  from  all  quarters  that  such  remedy  will 
be  given.  Republican  Governors  and  Legislatures  are  beginning  to  re 
cede  from  their  aggressive  acts.  Already  Ohio  has  begun  this  work  of 
redress. 

The  fugitive  slave  law  may  be  the  ostensible  reason  for  secession,  or 
ancillary  to  the  real  grievance.  Aside  from  certain  economic  reasons, 
which  have  ever  impelled  South  Carolina,  and  which  I  will  not  now  con 
sider,  the  real  grievance  consists  in  the  apprehension  of  slave  insurrections 
and  abolition,  under  the  auspices  of  an  Executive  who,  though  not  yet 
inaugurated,  was  elected  on  a  principle  of  hostility  to  the  social  system 
of  the  South.  Or,  to  give  it  the  strongest  statement,  which  I  find  in  a 
pamphlet  signed  by  the  member  from  Arkansas  [Mr.  HINDMAN],  "  The 
Republican  candidates  were  elected  upon  a  platform  destructive  of  our 
rights,  branding  our  institutions  as  infamous,  decreeing  the  equality  of  the 


SECESSION.  197 

negro  with  ourselves  and  our  children,  and  dooming  us,  in  the  end,  with 
murderous  certainty,  to  all  the  horrors  of  insurrection  and  servile  war." 
He  holds  :  "  that  to  imprison  slavery  for  ever  in  the  States  where  it  now 
exists,  will,  in  time,  overburden  the  land  with  the  predominating  increase 
in  the  ratio  of  blacks  to  whites,  until  there  will  be  a  conflict  for  supremacy 
of  races,  and  the  blacks  will  be  exterminated  ;  or  else  the  white  man  must 
abandon  his  country  for  ever  to  the  negro."  I  will  grant  the  full  force  of 
this /ear,  though  not  the  sufficiency  of  this  or  any  mere  fear,  as  a  cause  to 
justify  revolution.  The  Union  men  of  the  North  began  to  warn  against 
the  dawning  of  this  dangerous  geographical  movement  in  1856.  They 
repeated  then,  and  then  not  in  vain,  the  farewell  words  of  Washington. 
From  every  press  and  husting  which  a  Democrat  could  command,  this 
evil  day  was  prophesied.  But  we  were  Cassandras.  Unbelieving  men 
derided  us  as  doughfaces,  and  sneered  at  us  as  Union-savers.  The  patri 
otic  Choate,  in  one  of  his  weird  and  wondrous  prophecies,  in  1855,  with 
the  pain  of  anxiety  upon  his  brow,  put  on  record  his  deliberate  and  inex 
tinguishable  opposition  to  this  geographical  party.  He  regarded  the  con 
test  then  as  the  stupendous  trial  and  peril  of  our  national  life.  Admitting 
faults  South  and  faults  North,  yet  turning  to  the  battle  years  of  the  Re 
public  and  its  baptism  of  fire,  he  shrank  aghast  at  the  moral  treason  of 
attempting  to  weave  and  plait  the  two  northern  wings  of  the  old  national 
parties  into  a  single  northern  one,  and  cut  the  southern  wing  off  altogether, 
as  neither  far-sighted  nor  safe,  however  new  and  bold.  Let  me  give  his 
statement  of  the  complaint,  for  he  stated  it  in  advance  as  strongly  as  it  can 
now  be  stated : 

"  To  combine  these  parties  thus  against  each  other  geographically — to  take  the  whole 
vast  range  of  the  free  States,  lying  together,  sixteen  out  of  thirty-one,  seventeen  millions 
out  of  five  or  six  and  twenty  millions — the  most  populous,  the  strongest,  the  most  ad 
vancing — and  form  them  in  battalion  against  the  fewer  numbers  and  slower  growth  and 
waning  relative  power  on  the  other  side ;  to  bring  this  sectional  majority  under  party 
drill  and  stimulus  of  pay  and  rations ;  to  offer  to  it,  as  a  party,  the  government  of  our 
country,  its  most  coveted  honors,  its  largest  salaries,  all  its  sweets  of  patronage  and 
place ;  to  penetrate  and  fire  so  mighty  and  so  compact  a  mass  with  the  still  more  delicious 
idea  that  they  are  moving  for  human  rights  and  the  equality  of  man ;  to  call  out  their 
clergy  from  the  pulpit,  the  library,  the  bedside  of  the  dying,  the  chair  of  the  anxious  in 
quirer,  the  hearth  of  the  bereaved,  to  bless  such  a  crusade ;  to  put  in  requisition  every 
species  of  rhetoric  and  sophistry  to  impress  on  the  general  mind  the  sublime,and  impres 
sive  dogma  that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal ;  and  that  such  a  geographical  party  is  a 
well-adapted  means  to  that  end — does  this  strike  you  as  altogether  in  the  spirit  of  Wash 
ington  and  Franklin,  and  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution,  and  the  Farewell  Address  ? 
Does  it  strike  you  that  if  carried  out  it  will  prove  to  be  a  mere  summer  excursion  to  Mos 
cow  ?  Will  there  be  no  bivouac  in  the  snow,  no  avenging  winter  hanging  on  retreat ;  no 
Leipsic,  no  Waterloo  ?  " 

Has  the  avenging  winter  indeed  come  !     God  in  his  mercy  forbid  ! 

That  crusade  failed  in  1856.  What  a  risk  we  ran  then !  It  suc 
ceeded  in  1860.  What  a  peril  is  now  upon  us  !  What  a  crusadq  it  was 
which  has  produced  it !  I  well  remember  that  my  own  Republican  com 
petitor  for  this  seat  was  quoted  in  Blackwood's  Magazine,  with  Tory 
delight,  over  the  anti-slavery  revolution  which  he  preached  in  this  House 
in  1856,  and  which  he  would  have  ushered  in  with  Bunker  Hills,  and 
other  battle-fields  of  freedom. 

But  admitting  the  source  of  this  great  peril  to  lie  in  Republican  as- 


198  EIGHT    YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

tendency,  still,  I  ask,  is  it  remediless  in  the  Union?  Admitting  all  you 
claim  of  danger  to  your  States  from  this  sectional  triumph  ;  admitting  that 
you  are  right  in  concerting  for  your  own  protection — yet  is  it  right,  fair, 
or  just  to  rush  forward,  regardless  alike  of  friends  and  foes,  to  a  chasm 
where  no  guarantee  can  be  asked  or  offered  ?  Give  us  one  more  chance 
to  appeal  to  the  returning  reason  of  the  North,  now  that  it  is  startled  by 
the  fulfilment  of  these  prophecies  and  warnings.  If  you  do  not,  what  then  ? 
You  will  give  to  your  enemies  the  advantage  which  belongs  to  you  and  to 
us.  They  are  already  eager  to  seize  the  legislative  as  well  as  the  execu 
tive  departments.  They  talk  of  reforming  the  Supreme  Court  for  their 
purposes.  They  who  have  taught  and  practised  the  breaches  of  civil  dis 
cipline,  are  becoming  the  conservators  of  public  order.  On  your  retiring, 
they  will  filch  from  its  old  guard  the  ensign  of  the  Constitution.  Why,  to 
break  up  this  Government  before  a  full  hearing  of  the  grievances,  is  to  be 
worse  even  than  Red  Republicanism  !  Shall  it  be  said  that  our  friends 
of  the  South  are  worse  than  the  Red  Communists  of  France  ?  So  it  would 
seem,  and  so  I  will  proceed  to  prove. 

Apprehension  of  evil !  It  was  the  argument  of  despotism  in  France  in 
1851.  Louis  Napoleon  used  it  for  his  bad  purposes  ;  but  the  French  Re 
publicans  denounced  it.  Let  me  draw  the  analogy.  In  article  forty-five 
of  the  French  Constitution,  it  was  enacted  : 

"Le  Pr6sident  de  la  Rcpublique  est  61u  pour  quatre  ans,  et  n'est  reeligible  qu'apres  un 
intervale  de  quatre  annecs." — Annuaire  Historique,  1848,  Appendice,  p.  43. 

In  article  one  hundred  and  ten  it  was  further  enacted : 

"Lorsque,  dans  la  derniere  annee  d'une  Legislature,  1'Assemblee  riationale  aura  emis  le 
voeu  que  la  Constitution  soit  modifiee  en  tout  ou  en  partie,  il  sera  precede  a  cette  revision 
de  la  maniere  suivante. 

"  Le  voeu  exprime  par  1'Assemblee  ne  sera  converti  en  resolution  definitive  qu'apres 
trois  deliberations  successives,  prises  chacune  a  un  mois  d'intervale  et  au  trois  quarts  de^ 
suffrages  exprimes. 

"  Le  nombre  des  votants  ne  pourra  etre  moindre  de  cinq  cents." 

Thus,  in  1848,  Louis  Napoleon  was  elected  President  for  four  years, 
the  constitutional  term.  He  was,  by  the  one  hundred  and  tenth  article, 
ineligible  to  a  reelection  except  after  an  interval  of  four  years.  His  term 
would  have  expired  in  May,  1852.  The  summer  of  1851,  in  France,  was 
signalized'by  vague  apprehensions  of  a  revolt,  when  the  President  should 
constitutionally  go  out.  Under  this  apprehension  the  National  Legisla 
ture  were  summoned  to  change  the  Constitution.  It  required  three  ex 
press  ballots  of  the  Assembly,  taken  at  a  month's  interval,  with  three- 
fourths  of  the  Assembly,  and  at  least  five  hundred  votes  to  be  given,  be 
fore  that  Constitution  could  be  so  changed  as  to  continue  Napoleon  in 
power.  Hereupon  arose  a  parliamentary  struggle,  unequalled  in  any 
forum.  It  was  before  the  giant  intellects  of  France  were  exiled  by  the 
perfidy  of  its  ruler.  Here  was  a  country  like  France ,  with  sixty  years 
of  political  vicissitude,  wherein  every  tradition  and  compact  had  been 
violated  ;  and  yet  even  there,  the  Constitution  of  the  new  Republic  was 
invested  with  such  a  sanctity,  that  it  defied  the  majority  of  the  Assembly 
to  change  it.  The  Lafayettes,  the  Hugos,  the  Lamartincs,  the  African 
Generals,  Lamoriciere,  Changarnier,  Cavaignac,  Bedeau,  and  Le  Flo, 
struggled  against  this  change,  with  an  eloquence  radiant  with  French  fer- 


SECESSION.  199 

vor,  and  inspired  with  the  genius  of  great  deeds.  Their  President  had 
sworn  to  be  "  faithful  to  the  Democratic  Republic,  one  and  indivisible,  and 
to  fulfil  the  duties  imposed  by  the  Constitution."  At  length  a  vote  was 
taken.  There  were  446  for  the  amendment ;  only  278  against  it ;  a 
majority  of  1G8  ;  but  not  enough  ;  not  the  required  three-fourths  !  The 
crafty  President,  finding  he  could  not  change  the  Constitution  in  the  con 
stitutional  manner,  began  to  ply  the  popular  will  for  his  purposes.  The 
Conseils  Generaux  demanded,  and  two  million  people  petitioned  for  the 
change.  But  the  Eepublicans,  moderate  and  red,  stood  their  ground. 
Even  Proudhon,  blood-red  Communist,  from  his  prison  of  St.  Pelagic, 
wrote  to  Girarcliu  that  universal  suffrage  would  not  be  price  enough  for 
such  a  breach  of  the  Constitution.  The  great  question  was  referred  to  a 
committee,  of  which  De  Tocqueville  was  chairman.  He,  too,  withstood 
the  pressure  of  power.  The  will  of  the  minority,  for  whose  protection 
constitutions  are  made,  became,  through  the  constituted  mode  of  amend 
ment,  the  will  of  the  majority  ;  nay,  of  the  State.  Just  as  nine  States  in 
this  Union  hold  our  Constitution  in  statu  quo,  against  the  will  of  the  re 
mainder.  These  loyal  Frenchmen  appealed  to  the  nation,  against  the  ad 
herents  of  the  Bourbon,  Orleans,  and  Bonaparte.  "  No,"  they  said,  "  we 
will  not  give  up  the  repose  of  France,  at  the  price  of  quieting  apprehen 
sion  of  future  revolt."  They  thus  confined  the  enemies  of  the  Republic  to 
the  circle  of  the  Constitution,  from  which  they  could  not  break  without 
crime.  They  declared  that  the  prolongation  of  the  term  of  Napoleon  was 
a  crime,  impious  and  parricidal.  When  it  was  said  that  Napoleon  would 
override  the  Constitution  with  force  in  1852,  if  not  before,  they  answered  ; 
"  Such  a  crisis  will  be  revolution,  arising  from  a  violation  of  the  funda 
mental  compact.  In  that  case  we  declare  that,  enveloped  in  the  flag  of 
France,  we  will  do  the  duty  which  the  salvation  of  the  Republic  imposes  !  " 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  urged,  as  it  is  here  urged,  that  if  the  Constitu 
tion  was  not  broken,  there  would  be  dangers  more  fatal.  By  a  fore 
knowledge  of  disaster,  it  was  urged  that  the  end  of  Napoleon's  term  must , 
be  a  convulsion,  which  the  Assembly,  acting  on  an  apprehension,  ought 
to  bind  in  advance.  To  save  him  from  perjury,  a  majority  of  the  Assem 
bly  were  willing  to  commit  it  themselves.  So  now,  according  to  my 
theory,  South  Carolina  would  break  the  Constitution  and  her  oath  of  feal 
ty,  in  apprehension  of  an  aggression  which  the  President  elect,  even  if  he 
would,  has  no  power  to  commit. 

The  summer  of  1851  passed  in  France.  Again  and  again  had  the 
minority  of  the  Assembly  rescued  the  Constitution  from  civil  dethrone 
ment.  They  triumphed  in  the  forum  of  reason.  But  stay  !  In  a  night — 
in  the  midst  of  the  debates  of  the  Assembly — on  that  fatal  December 
night,  the  usurper  seized  the  reins  of  power,  and  like  a  thief,  by  a  noctur 
nal  surprise,  he  silenced  every  voice  but  his  own,  muzzled  the  press,  struck 
down  the  Assembly,  transported  its  leaders  without  judgment,  made  his 
Senate  of  mock  Dukes,  and  surrounded  himself  with  the  bastards  of  his 
race.  He  illustrated  the  glory  of  a  reign  based  on  nullification,  force, 
perjury,  and  fraud !  And  is  this  the  banquet  to  which  the  American 
people  is  invited,  by  those  among  us  who  hate  Red  Republicans  even 
worse  than  Black  ?  Let  the  American  freeman  from  this  example  remem 
ber  this  lesson :  If  political  compacts  like  our  Constitution  be  broken, 


200  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGBESS. 

the  limits  of  authority  are  effaced.  Right  succumbs  to  force.  It  signifies 
little  whether  such  acts  are  done  by  Executive  usurpation,  military  com 
pression,  Congressional  action,  or  State  secession ;  the  Government  is 
gone  !  States  which  will  not  keep  inviolate  the  fixed  principles  of  consti 
tutional  right,  repudiate  their  own  strength,  assassinate  their  own  life, 
tarnish  their  own  glory,  and  will  receive  and  deserve  the  ill-starred  fate  of 
France  !  In  whatever  form  these  infractions  may  come,  history  has  but 
one  answer  for  their  effect.  When  law  is  defied  successfully,  division  will 
come  armed  with  tenfold  terror.  Force  will  be  arrayed  against  force. 
The  brute  rules  and  reason  dies.  If  not  resisted,  there  is  but  one  alterna 
tive  :  yokes  of  wood  instead  of  cords  of  silk,  and  yokes  of  iron  instead  of 
yokes  of  wood.  The  red  spectre  of  revolution,  or  the  gentler  movements 
of  acquiescent  infraction  of  the  organic  law.  There  is  but  one  step  from 
the  Capitol  to  the  Tarpeian  rock.  After  centuries  of  brave  struggle,  thus 
France  lost  the  Republic.  What  shall  we  say  of  America,  with  her  seven 
ty  years  crowded  with  the  trophies  of  her  success  and  greatness  ?  Read 
the  prophetic  warning  of  Judge  Story  (vol.  ii.,  p.  138,  of  his  Life  and  Let 
ters)  in  his  introduction  to  his  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution : 

"  The  influence  of  the  disturbing  causes  which,  more  than  once  in  the  Convention,  were 
on  the  point  of  breaking  up  the  Union,  have  since  immeasurably  increased  in  concentra 
tion  and  vigor.  The  very  inequalities  of  a  Government,  confessedly  founded  on  a  com 
promise,  were  then  felt  with  a  strong  sensibility ;  and  every  new  source  of  discontent, 
whether  accidental  or  permanent,  has  since  added  increased  activity  to  the  painful  sense 
of  these  inequalities.  The  North  cannot  but  perceive  that  it  has  yielded  to  the  South  a 
superiority  of  representatives,  already  amounting  to  twenty-five,  beyond  its  due  proportion ; 
and  the  South  imagines  that,  with  all  this  preponderance  in  representation,  the  other  parts 
of  the  Union  enjoy  a  more  perfect  protection  of  their  interests  than  her  own.  The  West 
feels  her  growing  power  and  weight  in  the  Union,  and  the  Atlantic  States  begin  to  learn 
that  the  sceptre  must  one  day  depart  from  them.  If,  under  these  circumstances,  the  Union 
should  once  be  broken  up,  it  is  impossible  that  a  new  Constitution  should  ever  be  formed 
embracing  the  whole  territory.  We  shall  be  divided  into  several  nations  or  confederacies, 
rivals  in  power  and  interest,  too  proud  to  brook  injury,  and  too  close  to  make  retaliation 
^distant  or  ineffectual.  Our  very  animosities  will,  like  those  of  all  other  kindred  nations, 
"become  more  deadly,  because  our  lineage,  laws,  and  language  are  the  same.  Let  the  his 
tory  of  the  Grecian  and  Italian  republics  warn  us  of  our  dangers.  The  national  Consti 
tution  is  our  last  and  our  only  security.  United  we  stand,  divided  we  fall." 

Ah  !  it  is  easier  to  commit  than  to  justify  such  a  parricide  !  But  to 
justify  it  on  an  apprehension,  is  neither  courageous  nor  safe.  Let 
South  Carolina  beware  !  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  on  the  17th 
January,  1788,  in  the  South  Carolina  Convention,  on  the  adoption  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  said :  "  We  are  so  weak  that,  by  ourselves, 
we  could  not  form  a  union  strong  enough  for  the  purpose  of  effectually 
protecting  each  other.  Without  union  with  the  other  States,  South  Car 
olina  must  soon  fall.  Is  there  any  one  among  us  so  much  of  a  Quixote 
as  to  suppose  that  this  State  could  long  maintain  her  independence  if  she 
stood  alone,  or  was  only  connected  with  the  other  southern  States  ?  "  (El 
liott's  Slate  Convention  Debates,  vol.  iv.,  p.  275.)  The  same  statesman,  on 
page  290,  in  paying  a  compliment  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
says :  "  The  separate  independence  and  individual  sovereignty  of  the 
several  States  were  never  thought  of  by  the  enlightened  band  of  patriots 
who  framed  this  declaration.  The  several  States  are  not  even  mentioned 
by  name  in  any  part  of  it,  as  if  it  was  intended  to  impress  the  maxim  on 


SECESSION.  201 

America,  that  our  freedom  and  independence  arose  from  our  Union,  and 
that,  without  it,  we  could  neither  be  free  nor  independent.  Let  us  then 
consider  all  attempts  to  weaken  this  Union,  by  maintaining  that  each 
State  is  separately  and  individually  independent,  as  a  species  of  political 
heresy  which  can  never  benefit  us,  but  may  bring  on  us  the  most  serious 
distresses."  God  is  just  and  history  inexorable.  In  leaving  the  ensign  of 
the  stars  and  stripes,  South  Carolina  will  find  no  repose  beneath  her  little 
palm.  It  is  from  Augustus  to  Augustulus.  Her  only  renown  and  strength 
are  in  the  clustered  States — the  Bundestaat,  as  the  Germans  term  it — not 
in  selfish,  unfraternal,  and  hostile  loneliness.  When  she  rends  the  bonds 
of  the  Constitution,  she  opens  her  peace  to  the  chances  of  that  dark  fu 
ture,  so  vividly  anticipated  by  the  gentleman  from  Arkansas. 

I  do  not  now  say  that  I  would  vote  means  and  money  to  repress  her 
revolution.  But  am  I  not  bound  by  my  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  and  not  of  the  dis-United  States  ?  If  I  do  not  do  my  part  to 
carry  on  this  Government,  and  to  enforce  its  laws,  have  I  any  business 
here?  Neither  can  I  withhold  my  respect  from  magistrates  because 
they  are  not  my  choice.  Private  opinions  must  give  place  to  public  au 
thority.  The  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  under  the  forms  of  the  Con 
stitution,  however  deplorable,  cannot  be  questioned  with  argument  or 
arms.  Judge  DOUGLAS  exhausted  the  argument  in  his  reply  to  the  Nor 
folk  questions  ;  and  I  have  no  such  poor  opinion  of  any  portion  of  our 
people  as  to  believe  that  they  will  question  it  with  arms.  South  Carolina 
herself  participated  in  this  election,  giving  her  voice  for  her  favorite. 
When,  therefore,  she  would  ignore  this  election,  and  break  the  established 
order  for  this  and  other  unjustifiable  causes,  she  runs  a  fearful  risk.  Her 
destiny  becomes  a  raffle.  The  insurrection  of  her  slaves  will  then  only 
become  a  question  of  opportunity.  The  slave  trade  will  not  help,  only 
hasten  and  aggravate  her  ills.  Perhaps,  in  the  eye  of  Providence,  it  was 
her  wisest  act,  when  she  yielded  her  assent  to  that  Federal  covenant 
which  was  and  is  a  restraint  against  herself  and  her  slaves  and  for  herself 
and  her  safety.  That  assent  and  that  covenant  were  the  highest  expres 
sion  of  the  popular  will ;  for  they  were  the  voice  of  the  majority,  which 
Jefferson  called  the  vital  principle  of  Republics,  and  from  which  there  is 
no  appeal  but  to  force — the  vital  principle  and  immediate  parent  of  des 
potism. 

Before  risking  such  chances,  cannot  the  South  await  the  returning 
justice  of  the  North  ?  Unless  disunion  be  determined  upon  in  spite  of 
every  effort  at  harmony,  I  do  not  see  why,  after  having  so  long  acqui 
esced  in  the  breach  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution,  any  State 
shoidd  go  out  upon  that  ground,  even  though,  as  Mr.  Webster  held,  its 
breach  be  treason.  And  as  for  the  North,  so  long  as  the  Federal  laws 
remain  unbroken,  and  no  serious  detriment  to  the  public  property  and 
peace  is  threatened,  cannot  she,  too,  tolerate  these  heated  appeals,  rebel 
lious  ordinances,  and  too  careless  handling  of  gunpowder  at  Point  Morris, 
with  equanimity,  for  the  chance  only  of  the  rehabilitation  of  the  seceding 
States  ?  At  least,  until  the  North  repeal  their  nullification  laws,  would 
not  such  equanimity  be  magnanimity?  Let  the  South  desist  from  further 
attempts  to  obstruct  the  collection  of  the  Federal  revenues  and  despoil  the 
property  of  the  Government ;  let  there  be  no  attempt  to  exclude  the  people 


202  EIGHT   TEAKS    IN    CONGKESS. 

North  and  West  from  this  Federal  District  and  Capitol,  and  no  attempt 
to  shew  us  who  are  inland  from  the  Gulf  or  sea  ;  and  then  what  occasion 
is  there  likely  to  arise  in  which  the  North  will  dare  take  up  arms  to 
shoot  or  bayonet  southern  citizens  into  the  Union,  which  they  only  leave, 
we  may  hope,  constructively? 

If,  as  Mr.  DOUGLAS  argued,  war  is  disunion,  cannot  we,  who  love  it  so 
well,  afford  to  be  patient  for  the  Union?  But  what  a  danger  is  here! 
Once  let  the  fealty  to  this  Government  be  broken,  and  who  can  restrain  the 
excesses  incident  thereto  ?  If  such  excesses  be  committed,  there  would  be 
aroused  a  martial  spirit  which,  in  rushing  to  the  defence  of  Major  An 
derson  and  his  men  in  Fort  Sumter,  or  to  avenge  their  death,  would  do 
and  dare  all  in  the  name  of  our  Great  Republic.  Touch  not  a  hair  of  his 
head  !  He  is  sacred  to-day.  He  embodies  the  patriotism  of  millions. 
Accident  has  made  him  the  defender  of  that  flag  which  has  floated  from 
Bunker  Hill  to  Mexico.  His  death  would  open  a  gulf  into  which  the  people 
would  pour,  in  vengeance  even  if  in  vain,  their  treasures  and  their  chil 
dren. 

Or  if  a  confederation  South  propose  to  control  the  mouths  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  and  its  banks,  do  you  believe  it  could  be  done  without  a  protest  of 
arms  ?  Do  you  know  the  history  of  that  acquisition,  and  its  vital  neces 
sity  to  the  Northwest?  I  hope  you  have  listened  to  the  able  recital  of 
my  friend  from  Illinois  [Mr.  MCCLERNAND]  touching  these  points.  It 
would  seem,  from  the  news  we  have  to-day,  that  a  system  of  espionage 
and  detention  by  force  has  already  been  begun  in  Mississippi,  upon  steam 
ers  from  the  North.  That  mighty  river,  of  two  thousand  miles  extent, 
one  of  whose  tributaries  doubles  the  parent  stream  in  its  length,  with  its 
$60,000,000  worth  of  steamers,  doing  the  business  of  twelve  States,  with 
an  area  of  one  million  two  hundred  thousand  square  miles  drained  by  its 
waters — from  the  snows  and  timbers  of  the  North,  to  the  sun  and  blooms 
of  the  South — will  ever  remain  in  the  Union  !  It  was  the  necessity  for 
its  use  and  outlet  which,  in  part,  called  for  the  Constitution  seventy-five 
years  ago.  As  the  veteran  General  Cass  told  me,  the  sparse  population 
in  my  own  State,  of  which  he  was  one,  were  even  then  ready  to  rise  in 
arms,  in  consequence  of  a  provisional  treaty  with  Spain,  which  did  not 
adequately  provide  for  the  coveted  riparian  privileges.  And  now,  after  a 
usufruct  of  three  quarters  of  a  century,  not  only  the  commerce,  the  honor, 
and  the  rights  of  the  West,  but  the  protesting  voices  •  of  nature,  calling 
from  valley  and  hill,  in  summer  rains,  in  gold-washing  streams  and  smiling 
cultivation ;  nay,  progress  itself,  which  is  the  life  of  the  West — which 
has  made  it  deserve  the  poet's  phrase,  applied  to  ancient  Latium,  potens 
armis  atque  ubere  glebce — progress,  which  is  the  stride  of  a  god  across 
the  continent — all  these  agencies  would  conspire  to  redden  the  Mississippi 
to  float  our  unequalled  produce  between  its  banks  to  the  sea  !  It  is  in 
dustry  which  would  thus  decree  ;  and  it  would  execute  its  own  edict. 
With  us,  not  gold,  nor  cotton,  but  INDUSTRY  is  KING  !  However  homely 
its  attire,  it  wears  the  purple,  and  on  its  brow  the  coronal  of  bearded 
grain,  irnpearled  with  the  priceless  sweat  of  independence.  It  will  stretch 
its  sceptre  from  THE  RIVER  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth  !  Neither  imposts, 
nor  tariffs,  nor  obstructions,  nor  foreign  control,  nor  hazard  of  foreign 
war,  shall  hedge  in  its  empire.  These  rights  of  transit  and  outlet  are  ours 


SECESSION.  203 

by  use,  by.  purchase,  by  possession  ;  and  ours  they  will  remain.  Leaving 
these  elements  of  strife  unstirred,  the  secession  movement  may  vanish 
into  a  foolish  dream — a  spectre  of  the  night,  which  will  depart  when  the 
dawn  shall  again  environ  us  in  the  cycle  of  its  felicities  ! 

But,  as  to  these  vague  apprehensions  of  aggressions  from  the  Presi 
dent  elect.  Would  it  not  be  best  to  await  his  entrance  into  power? 
What  overt  act  has  he  yet  done,  or  his  party,  in  a  Federal  way  ?  If  you 
resist  now,  it  should  be  against  the  States  whose  legislation  is  hostile  ;  not 
against  the  General  Government,  which  has  done  you  no  wrong.  When 
that  overt  act  is  done  which  you  fear,  you  will  find  the  northern  Democ 
racy  ready  to  join  you  in  the  defence  of  your  righte  and  the  vindication 
of  your  equality  of  privilege.  Will  southern  statesmen  look  a  few  facts 
in  the  face,  not  with  that  dumb  gaze  which  deadens  the  will  and  paralyzes 
the  intellect,  but  with  that  large  roundabout  common  sense  which  distin 
guished  her  early  statesmen ?  Is  not  Mr.  Lincoln  powerless  for  harm? 
Elected  by  about  two  million  out  of  five  million  votes,  he  is  in  a  minority 
of  a  million.  That  minority  diminishes  with  every  hour  of  northern 
misery,  want,  and  bankruptcy.  In  that  million  there  are  antagonizing 
elements,  without  power  morally  or  politically.  More  than  half  of  that 
million  will  show  a  feeling  of  fraternity,  which  no  partisanship  can  over 
whelm.  They  will  unite  with  that  gallant  band  of  Democrats  and  Ameri 
cans  in  the  North,  who  have  ever  warned  and  worked  against  the  im 
pending  catastrophe.  They  will  stand  in  the  next  Senate  and  House  as  a 
bulwark  against  the  further  advances  of  sectionalism.  In  my  own  State 
there  are  two  hundred  thousand  patriots  already  as  a  nucleus  for  this 
great  party  of  Union  and  justice.  These  men,  sir,  will  welcome  any  honor 
able  settlement.  For  myself,  I  have  a  preference.  I  would  prefer  Judge 
DOUGLAS'S  propositions  even  to  the  border  State  projet.  But  I  will  vote 
for  either,  for  they  answer  every  reasonable  demand  with  respect  to  the 
fugitive  slave  law,  slavery  in  this  District,  and  on  other  points.  In  refer 
ence  to  the  Territories,  the  border  projet  provides  : 

"  That  the  line  of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  shall  be  run  through  all  the  existing 
territory  of  the  United  States  ;  that  in  all  north  of  that  line  slavery  shall  be  prohibited, 
and  that,  south  of  that  line,  neither  Congress  nor  the  Territorial  Legislature  shall  hereafter 
pass  any  law  abolishing,  prohibiting,  or  in  any  manner  interfering  with  African  slavery, 
and  that,  when  any  Territory  containing  a  sufficient  population  for  one  member  of  Congress 
in  any  area  of  sixty  thousand  square  miles,  shall  apply  for  admission  as  a  State,  it  shall  be 
admitted,  with  or  without  slavery,  as  its  Constitution  may  determine." 

But,  if  this  will  not  answer,  let  the  proposition  of  Mr.  DOUGLAS  or 
Mr.  RICE  be  adopted.  Nay,  further,  if  it  be  the  only  alternative  to  pre 
serve  this  Union,  I  would  vote  for  the  proposition  of  Mr.  CRITTENDEN. 
Much  as  I  dislike,  in  this  age  of  progress,  an  irrevocable  law,  still  I 
would  write  it  in  the  Constitution,  if  thus  only  you  can  preserve  that  in 
strument.  It  provides  for  an  irrevocable  division  of  the  territory.  The 
President  says  of  it : 

"The  proposition  to  compromise,  by  letting  the  North  have  exclusive  control  of  the 
territory  above  a  certain  line,  and  giving  southern  institutions  protection  below  that  line, 
ought  to  receive  universal  approbation.  In  itself,  indeed,  it  may  not  be  entirely  satisfac 
tory  ;  but  when  the  alternative  is  between  a  reasonable  concession  on  both  sides,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  Union,  it  is  an  imputation  on  the  patriotism  of  Congress  to  assert  that 
its  members  will  hesitate  for  a  moment." 


204  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Shall  this  appeal  for  compromise  be  ineffectual  ?  It  may  be  a  sacri 
fice  of  northern  sentiment.  But,  sir,  the  conservative  men  will  sacrifice 
much  for  the  Union.  Sacrifice  and  compromise  are  convertible  terms. 
They  are  words  of  honorable  import.  The  one  gave  us  Calvary,  the 
other  the  Constitution.  Nothing  worth  having  was  ever  gained  without 
them.  Even  the  father  compromised  with  the  prodigal  son,  despite  the 
meanness  of  the  elder  brother.  He  saw  him  afar  off,  ran  to  him,  and 
with  the  evidences  of  affection,  restored  him  to  his  heirship  and  honor. 
Sacrifice  for  our  political  salvation !  Heaven  will  smile  upon  it.  The 
dove  of  peace  will  rest  upon  it.  If  the  Republicans  will  only  bestow  on 
us  a  few  of  their  conservative  votes  in  this  House,  we  will  do  our  part  to 
make  compromise  honorable.  If  you  dislike  the  word  compromise,  and 
are  content  with  the  offices  and  power  it  will  insure  you,  very  well.  You 
may  bear  away  the  booty,  we  will  carry  the  banner  !  We  will  not  quar 
rel,  nor  need  we  taunt  each  other.  You  may  enjoy  the  honors  and  pat 
ronage  of  administration ;  to  us  will  belong  the  laurelled  crown  of  the 
Revolution,  and  the  civic  wreath  of  the  great  Convention  ! 

Our  southern  friends  do  not  know  the  Republicans  as  we  do.  They 
will  be  content  with  the  tricks,  and  I  trust  allow  us  the  honors.  They 
will  be  as  harmless  in  office  as  most  men  are.  When  G'en.  WILSON  talks 
of  grinding  the  slave  power  to  powder,  he  never  intends  to  use  the  pow 
der,  only  to  enjoy  the  power.  [Laughter.]  When  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  LOVEJOY]  would  speak  to  the  God  of  battles,  he  is  only 
praying  to  an  unknown  God.  [Renewed  laughter.]  When  Senator  WADE, 
at  Belfast,  Maine,  four  years  ago,  proclaimed  that  there  was  no  Union, 
that  the  pretended  Union  was  meretricious ;  and  when  he  proposed  to 
drive  "  slavery  back  to  her  own  dark  dominions,  and  there  to  let  her  rot, 
and  damn  all  who  foster  her,"  he  was  only  illustrating  that  Christian 
sweetness  of  temper  and  fragrance  of  sentiment  which  is  now  offered  up 
as  incense  on  the  only  altar  he  knows — that  of  a  meretricious  Union, 
whose  shew-bread  he  would  eat  and  whose  precious  emblems  he  would 
plunder !  The  John  Brown  and  Helper  characteristics  are  convenient 
garments  among  them,  to  be  put  on  to  proselyte  the  churches  and  the  old 
women,  and  to  be  put  off  to  please  wide-awakes  and  old  Whigs.  They 
do  this  for  office.  They  do  not  think  of  its  effect  upon  the  South.  It  is 
a  trick  to  be  ignored  when  in  office.  These  defiant  men  at  home  will  be 
come  sucking  doves  in  power.  It  is  not  instinct  to  fight  over  provender. 
If  the  South  could  understand  them,  and  not  take  them  at  their  word  too 
rashly. 

It  is  said  that  the  reason  why  the  South  opposes  the  rule  of  Republi 
canism  is,  that  their  tenets  are  misrepresented  at  the  South.  I  will  not 
now  show  you  what  the  Republicans  profess  at  home.  I  hope  they 
will  fully  disavow,  under  the  composing  sweets  of  fat  jobs  and  offices, 
their  bad  acts  and  worse  avowals  when  out  of  office.  And  is  there  not 
reason  for  hope?  Patience  !  already  they  are  willing  to  forego  their  Con 
gressional  provisos  against  slavery.  They  have  already  proposed  to  drop 
intervention  by  Congress.  They  are  willing  to  accept  New  Mexico  as  a 
slave  State.  Courage,  gentlemen  !  I  do  not  taunt,  I  applaud,  this  spirit 
of  conciliation.  The  Republican  party  would  enjoy  its  power.  In  this 
it  is  not  peculiar,  perhaps.  It  is  a  way  men  and  parties  have.  It  will 


SECESSION.  205 

remember  that  to  retain  power — in  the  matter  of  personal  liberty  bills, 
non-delivery  of  criminals,  judicial  decisions,,  and  other  aggressions  on  the 
Constitution — these  wrongs  cannot  stand.  It  is  as  revolutionary  to  try  to 
keep  such  things  as  they  are,  as  it  is  to  upset  the  Government  because  of 
them.  There  is  nothing  so  convulsive  or  unnatural  as  the  strain  to  keep 
wrong  in  the  ascendant.  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  White  House  may  not  be 
the  rail-splitter  out  of  it.  Abraham,  in  faith,  may  offer  up  his  "  irrepres 
sible  "  offspring.  [Laughter.]  He  will  be  conservative,  with  a  total  ob 
livion  of  the  radical.  The  one  will  "conflict"  with  the  other;  and  the 
former  will  become  all  one  thing,  without  the  other.  He  may  disappoint 
the  South  as  much  as  the  abolition  wing  of  his  party.  In  their  abolition 
platforms,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  Republicans  would  hold  this  Union 
together  by  the  running  noose  of  John  Brown  gibbets  ;  but  when  they  ap 
proach  the  august  presence  of  power,  and  undertake  to  rule  thirty-one 
millions  of  people,  as  already  demonstrated  here,  they  hold  up  the  fasces  of 
the  Republic  and  wonder  why  we  ever  misunderstood  or  misrepresented 
their  innocency ! 

Their  success  is  the  result  of  passionate  appeals.  Passion  soon  sub 
sides.  This  is  the  old  and  avowed  means  of  the  anti-slavery  party.  It 
began  in  England,  as  you  will  see  by  the  London  "  Times  "  of  November  3, 
1832,  when  hired  orators  went  over  Britain,  under  pay  of  an  anti-slavery 
propagandism.  It  was  then  said  that  George  Thompson,  who  was  sent 
to  this  country  as  its  apostle,  was  "  the  very  lecturer  we  want,  because 
his  lectures  are  addressed  to  the  passions.  We  are  so  satisfied  of  the 
goodness  of  our  cause,  that  we  do  not  want  to  consult  the  reason  or  judg 
ment  of  the  people.  If  they  vote  for  us,  we  do  not  care  whether  their 
votes  come  through  their  passions  or  not."  This  brute  appeal  to  the  pas 
sions  succeeded  in  England,  as  her  ruined  West  Indies  testify  ;  for  phi 
lanthropy  there  is  great  in  proportion  to  its  distance  from  its  object.  But 
here  the  sense  of  a  brotherly  people  will  reprehend  such  appeals.  They  see 
the  African  here  in  his  relation  of  servitude.  They  know  what  he  be 
comes  in  the  North  when  free.  They  know  that  it  is  impossible  to  man 
umit  him  speedily,  without  injury  irreparable  to  white  and  black.  They 
will  not  sacrifice  this  Government  of  twenty-seven  and  a  half  million 
whites  to  do  no  good  to  three  and  a  half  million  blacks.  Even  many  of 
those  who  oppose  slavery,  find  in  it  the  relation  which  the  eagle  and  the 
lamb  sustained  in  the  air.  It  might  have  been  wrong  for  the  eagle  to 
have  seized  the  lamb.  The  eagle,  while  holding  it,  may  return  to  a  con 
sciousness  of  the  wrong  he  is  doing ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  should 
let  it  drop  from  his  talons  to  the  earth.  It  seems  impossible  for  any  one 
to  view  the  philosophy  of  Republican  principles,  and  not  revolt  in  sober 
reason  from  its  inevitable  and  suicidal  results.  There  is  hope  that  it  will 
be  as  timid  in  power  as  it  is  destructive  in  principle.  Heaven  will  smile 
on  such  timidity.  Nay,  it  will  cease  to  be  such,  if  prompted  by  an  honest 
desire  to  establish  justice  by  the  retraction  of  wrong.  It  will  become 
moral  courage. 

When  Mr.  Giddings  writes  to  Mr.  Ewing,  that  none  but  cowards, 
none  but  unvirile  minions  of  the  slave  power,  like  himself,  are  afraid  of 
dissolution,  he  begins  to  show  the  impotence  of  rage  at  a  fracture  already 
begun  in  the  party  which  he  originated.  The  Republican  party,  it  is  to 


206  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

be  hoped,  under  the  lead  of  Bates,  Raymond,  Corwin,  Ewing,  Weed,  ay, 
and  Scward  and  Lincoln  also,  will  drown  the  Giddings  crew,  even  if  they 
have  to  scuttle  their  own  party  ship,  and  go  down  with  it.  Time,  patience, 
fidelity  to  your  old  and  tried  friends,  gentlemen  of  the  South,  and  all  will 
be  well !  Let  us  exhaust  every  effort  at  an  accommodation.  There  is 
wisdom  in  the  letter  of  George  Washington,  of  July  27,  1798,  accepting 
the  command  in  chief,  in  the  threatened  war  against  the  French  Directory. 
Said  he : 

"  Satisfied  that  you  have  sincerely  endeavored  to  avert  war,  and  exhausted  to  the  last 
drop  the  cup  of  reconciliation,  we  can,  with  pure  hearts,  appeal  to  Heaven  for  the  justice 
of  our  cause." 

When  you  have  drained  the  cup  of  reconciliation  dry  and  have  not 
justice,  you  will  find  a  majority  of  northern  men  ready  to  fight  your  battle 
on  our  ground.  Never,  never  will  the  Democrats  of  Ohio,  so  long  as 
their  Republican  governors,  legislatures,  and  judges  do  not  retrace  their 
steps  and  do  justice  to  the  Constitution  which  they  have  annulled  ;  never 
will  these  Democrats,  the  best,  I  will  not  say  the  only  fighting  element  of 
Ohio,  thrust  Republican  wrongs  down  the  throats  of  the  South  at  the 
point  of  the  bayonet !  Am  I  answered  that  no  such  wrongs  exist  ?  If 
there  be  an  Ohio  Republican  on  this  floor  who  so  answers,  I  throw  down 
the  glove  and  will  lift  the  veil  from  the  spotted  leprosy  of  our  Republican 
rule.  I  will  not  sit  here  in  silent  acquiescence  of  the  disgraceful  conduct 
of  my  own  State.  I  have  no  State  pride  in  the  action  of  our  legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive  officers.  Let  the  supporters  of  IJrinkerhoff,  Sutliff, 
Denison,  and  their  companions,  take  up  the  glove  !  if  they  would  call 
South  Carolina  to  account,  let  them  first  remove  the  beam  from  their  own 
eye.  They  never  can,  while  spotted  with  moral  treason  and  guilty  of  de 
liberate  nullification,  make  Ohio  Democrats  the  tools  of  their  vengeance — 
never,  never !  When  they  denounce  the  mad  precipitancy  of  the  South, 
let  them  remove  its  cause  !  I  know  and  ponder  what  I  say.  You  will 
have  justice  if  you  will  have  patience  and  permit  reconciliation. 

Whatever  the  legal  powers  of  the  Federal  Goverment  may  be,  they 
derive  all  their  efficiency  from  the  popular  will.  The  Constitution  gives 
the  Government  force  to  execute  the  law ;  but  it  is  a  force,  after  all, 
which  resides  in  the  people,  and  which  they  will  withhold  in  an  unjust 
cause.  We  have  no  Army  to  execute  the  edict  of  Republican  injustice. 
Our  bayonets  think.  We  have  in  the  West,  beneatli  a  sheathen  rough 
ness,  a  keen  sabre  ready  to  flash  in  defence  of  the  Union  to  which  our 
people  owe  so  much,  and  which  is  the  best  beloved  of  their  heart.  And 
if  no  time  be  left  for  conciliation  ;  if  you  of  the  South  desert  your  friends 
and  the  Union  to  their  fate  ;  if  you  leave  to  be  decided  but  the  one  great 
overmastering  problem,  Union  or  disunion  ;  if  in  the  presence  of  this  hard 
solitary  question,  they  are  left  to  decide  it,  and  peril  come  from  their  de 
cision,  which  conservative  men  cannot  avert,  there  will  ring  out  from  the 
yearning  patriotic  heart  of  the  mighty  West,  it  may  be  in  agony  and  de 
spair  :  the  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  indivisible — it  must  and  shall 
be  preserved ! 

I  warn  the  Republican  party  that  they  will  need  the  aid  of  the  patriotic 
men  of  the  North  to  sustain  their  Executive.  This  revolution  is  reserv 
ing  its  more  effectual  overt  acts  for  Republican  rule.  What  then  ?  It 


SECESSION.  207 

will  have  become  strong  by  cooperation.  No  Republican  Administration 
can  enforce  the  law,  unless  the  Republican  State  authorities  first  place 
themselves  right  before  the  people,  and  reconstruct  the  moral  bases  of  their 
Governments.  By  the  4th  of  March,  South  Carolina  will  have  the  Gulf 
States  united.  It  will  appeal  to  that  economic  law  which  is  stronger 
than  sentiment.  By  its  appeal  to  the  interests  of  the  cotton  States  it  will 
succeed  in  securing  cooperation.  Before  we  enter  upon  a  career  of  force, 
let  us  exhaust  every  effort  at  peace.  Let  us  seek  to  excite  love  in  others 
by  the  signs  of  love  in  ourselves.  Let  there  be  no  needless  provocation 
and  strife.  Let  every  reasonable  attempt  at  compromise  be  considered. 
Otherwise  we  have  a  terrible  alternative.  War,  in  this  age  and  in  this 
country,  sir,  should  be  the  ultima  ratio.  Indeed,  it  may  well  be  ques 
tioned  whether  there  is  any  reason  in  it  or  for  it.  What  a  war  !  Endless 
in  its  hate,  without  truce  and  without  mercy.  If  it  ended  ever,  it  would 
only  be  after  a  fearful  struggle  ;  and  then  with  a  heritage  of  hate  which 
would  forever  forbid  harmony.  Henry  Clay  forewarned  us  of  such  a  war. 
His  picture  of  its  consequences  I  recall  in  his  own  language  : 

"I  will  not  attempt  to  describe  scenes  which  now  happily  lie  concealed  from  our  view. 
Abolitionists  themselves  would  shrink  back  in  dismay  and  horror  at  the  contemplation  of 
desolated  fields,  conflagrated  cities,  murdered  inhabitants,  and  the  overthrow  of  the  fairest 
fabric  of  human  government  that  ever  rose  to  animate  the  hopes  of  civilized  man.  Nor 
should  the  Abolitionists  flatter  themselves  that,  if  they  can  succeed  in  their  object  of  uniting 
the  people  of  the  free  States,  they  will  enter  the  contest  with  a  numerical  superiority  that 
must  insure  victory.  All  history  and  experience  proves  the  hazard  and  uncertainty  of 
war.  And  we  are  admonished  by  Holy  Writ  that  the  race  is  not  to  the  swift,  nor  the  bat 
tle  to  the  strong. 

"  But  if  they  were  to  conquer,  whom  would  they  conquer  ?  A  foreign  foe — one  who 
had  insulted  our  flag,  invaded  our  shores,  and  laid  our  country  waste  ?  No,  sir ;  no.  It 
would  be  a  conquest  without  laurels,  without  glory — a  self,  a  suicidal  conquest — a  con 
quest  of  brothers  over  brothers,  achieved  by  one  over  another  portion  of  the  descendants 
of  common  ancestors,  who,  nobly  pledging  their  lives,  their  fortune,  and  their  sacred 
honor,  had  fought  and  bled,  side  by  side,  in  many  a  hard  battle  on  land  and  ocean, 
severed  our  country  from  the  British  crown,  and  established  our  national  independence." 

Such  a  war  is  the  almost  unavoidable  result  of  a  dissolution  of  this 
Confederacy.  Mr.  Madison  (No.  61,"  Federalist")  urged  as  a  reason  for  the 
Union,  that  it  destroyed  every  pretext  for  a  military  establishment ;  "  but 
its  dissolution,"  said  he,  "  will  be  the  date  of  a  new  order  of  things.  Fear 
and  ambition  would  make  America  copy  Europe,  and  present  liberty 
everywhere  crushed  between  standing  armies  and  perpetual  taxes."  He 
augured  for  a  disunited  America  a  worse  condition  than  that  of  Europe. 
Would  it  not  be  so  ?  Small  States  and  great  States  ;  new  States  and  old 
States ;  slave  States  and  free  States  ;  Atlantic  States  and  Pacific  States  ; 
gold  and  silver  States  ;  iron  and  copper  States  ;  grain  States  and  lumber 
States ;  river  States  and  lake  States ;  all  having  varied  interests  and 
advantages,  would  seek  superiority  in  armed  strength.  Pride,  animosity, 
and  glory  would  inspire  every  movement.  God  shield  our  country  from 
such  a  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  the  revered  founders  of  the  Union. 
Our  struggle  would  be  no  short,  sharp  struggle.  Law,  and  even  Religion 
herself,  would  become  false  to  their  divine  purpose.  Their  voice  would 
no  longer  be  the  voice  of  God,  but  of  his  enemy.  Poverty,  ignorance, 
oppression,  and  its  handmaid,  cowardice,  breaking  out  into  merciless 
cruelty ;  slaves  false ;  freemen  slaves,  and  society  itself  poisoned  at  the 


208  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

cradle  and  dishonored  at  the  grave — its  life,  now  so  full  of  blessings, 
would  be  gone  with  the  life  of  a  fraternal  and  united  State-hood.  What 
sacrifice  is  too  great  to  prevent  such  a  calamity?  Is  such  a  picture  over 
drawn?  Already  its  outlines  appear.  What  means  the  inaugural  of 
Governor  Pickens,  when  he  says,  "  From  the  position  we  may  occupy 
toward  the  northern  States,  as  well  as  from  our  own  internal  structure 
of  society,  the  government  may,  from  necessity,  become  strongly  military  in 
its  organization  "  ?  What  means  the  minute-men  of  Governor  Wise  ? 
What  the  southern  boast  that  they  have  a  rifle  or  shot-gun  to  each  family  ? 
What  means  the  Pittsburg  mob  ?  What  this  alacrity  to  save  Forts  Moul- 
trie  and  Pinckney?  What  means  the  boast  of  the  southern  men  of  being 
the  best-armed  people  in  the  world,  not  counting  the  two  hundred  thou 
sand  stand  of  United  States  arms  stored  in  southern  arsenals?  Already 
Georgia  has  her  arsenals,  with  eighty  thousand  muskets  !  What  mean 
these  lavish  grants  of  money  by  southern  Legislatures  to  buy  more  arms  ? 
What  mean  these  rumors  of  arms  and  force  on  the  Mississippi  ?  These 
few  facts  have  already  verified  the  prophecy  of  Madison. 

Mr.  Speaker,  he  alone  is  just  to  his  country ;  he  alone  has  a  mind 
unwarped  by  section,  and  a  memory  unparalyzed  by  fear,  who  warns 
against  precipitancy.  He  who  could  hurry  this  nation  to  the  rash  wager 
of  battle,  is  not  fit  to  hold  the  seat  of  legislation.  What  can  justify  the 
breaking  up  of  our  institutions  into  belligerent  fractions?  Better  this 
marble  Capitol  were  levelled  to  the  dust ;  better  were  this  Congress  struck 
dead  in  its  deliberations ;  better  an  immolation  of  every  ambition  and 
passion  which  have  here  met  to  shake  the  foundations  of  society,  than  the 
hazard  of  these  consequences  ! 

As  yet,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  defensive  conduct  of  the  Executive  in 
volves  these  consequences.  Nay,  I  hope  that  firmness  in  resisting  aggres 
sion,  with  the  kindness  which  he  has  endeavored  to  show,  may  do  much  to 
avert  them.  Certainly  weakness  and  indecision  now  will  not  avail  to 
check  the  rising  tide  of  public  sentiment,  and  preserve  the  public  peace. 
I  agree  with  much  that  my  friends  from  Illinois  [Mr.  MCCLERNAND], 
New  York  [Mr.  SICKLES],  and  Ohio  [Mr.  VALLANDIGIIAM]  have  said 
as  to  the  interests,  dignity,  and  rights  of  their  own  sections.  I  will  not  now 
go  into  any  calculation  or  contemplation  about  the  results  of  a  disseverance 
of  this  Union.  Long  may  it  be  averted — that  picture  of  Ohio,  as  the 
narrow  isthmus  between  a  broken  East  and  a  divided  West,  with  a  hostile 
southern  border !  Long  may  it  be  averted — that  sad  picture  of  New 
York,  a  great  free  emporium,  trading  to  all  the  world,  and  closed  against 
the  interchange  of  her  own  inland  !  We  have  gloom  enough  without  these 
new  schemes  of  division.  I  invoke  the  better  spirit  of  Washington,  who 
never  spoke  so  truly  prophetic  as  a  statesman  as  when  he  said : 

"  In  contemplating  the  causes  which  may  disturb  our  Union,  it  occurs  as  a  matter  of 
serious  concern,  that  any  ground  should  have  been  furnished  for  characterizing  parties  by 
geographical  discriminations,  northern  and  southern,  Atlantic  and  Western,  whence  de 
signing  men  may  endeavor  to  incite  a  belief  that  there  is  a  real  difference  of  local  interests 
and  views.  You  cannot  shield  yourselves  too  much  against  the  jealousies  and  heart-burn 
ings  which  spring  from  these  misrepresentations.  They  tend  to  render  alien  to  each  other 
those  who  ought  to  be  bound  together  by  fraternal  affection." 

In  these  days  of  anticipated  trouble,  when  financial  disaster  tracks  the 


SECESSION.  209 

step  of  political  infidelity  ;  when  the  violation  of  compact  is  followed  close 
by  the  intemperate  zealotry  of  revolution  ;  when  even  the  property  of  our 
Union  is  seized,  and  our  flag  is  torn  down  under  its  impulses ;  when,  as 
if  premonitory  of  some  great  sacrifice,  the  veil  of  our  political  temple 
seems  rent,  and  the  earth  about  us  quakes,  and  the  very  graves  give  up 
their  dead,  who  come  forth  to  warn,  beseech,  advise,  and  moderate,  in 
this  hour  of  our  country's  deepest  gloom  and  peril — let  us  heed,  with  an 
all-embracing  and  all-compromising  patriotism,  the  warning  of  Washing 
ton,  whose  voice,  though  he  be  dead,  yet  speaketh  from  yonder  tomb  at 
Mount  Vernon,  and  whose  august  presence  I  would  summon  here  as  the 
PRESERVER  of  that  country  whose  greatest  pride  it  is,  to  hail  him  as  its 
FATHER  ! 

In  his  sacred  name,  and  on  behalf  of  a  people  who  have  ever  heeded 
his  warning,  and  never  wavered  in  the  just  defence  of  the  South  or  of 
the  North,  I  appeal  to  southern  men  who  contemplate  a  step  so  fraught 
with  hazard  and  strife,  to  pause.  Clouds  are  about  us  !  There  is  light 
ning  in  their  frown  !  Cannot  we  direct  it  harmlessly  to  the  earth?  The 
morning  and  evening  prayer  of  the  people  I  speak  for  in  such  weakness, 
rises  in  strength  to  that  Supreme  Ruler  who,  in  noticing  the  fall  of  a  spar 
row,  cannot  disregard  the  fall  of  a  nation,  that  our  States  may  continue 
to  be — as  they  have  been — one  ;  one  in  the  unreserve  of  a  mingled  na 
tional  being  ;  one  as  the  thought  of  God  is  One  ! 

[Here  Mr.  Cox's  hour  expired ;  but,  by  unanimous  consent  of  the 
House,  he  was  allowed  to  go  on  and  conclude  his  remarks.] 

These  emblems  above  us,  in  their  canopy  of  beauty,  each  displaying 
the  symbol  of  State  interest,  State  pride,  and  State  sovereignty,  let  not 
one  of  them  be  dimmed  by  the  rude  breath  of  passion,  or  effaced  by  the 
ruder  stroke  of  enmity.  They  all  shine,  like  stars,  differing  in  glory,  in 
their  many-hued  splendors,  by  the  light  of  the  same  orb,  even  as  our 
States  receive  their  lustre  from  the  Union,  which  irradiates  and  glorifies 
each  and  all. 

Our  aspirations  and  hopes  centre  in  the  proud  title  of  American  citi 
zen.  Whether  we  hail  from  the  land  of  granite  or  the  everglade  of  flow 
ers  ;  from  the  teeming  bosom  of  the  West,  the  sea-washed  shore  of  the 
East,  or  the  gold-bearing  sierras  of  the  Pacific  slope — all  are  imbound  by 
the  same  rigol  of  American  patriotism.  Abroad,  at  home,  in  palace  or 
in  cabin,  in  ship  or  on  land,  we  rejoice  in  that  proud  distinction  of 
American  citizen.  We  look  upon  our  nationality  as  the  actual  of  that 
ideal  described  by  Edmund  Burke  in  a  strain  of  finished  eloquence  and 
sublimest  philosophy — as  something  better  than  a  partnership  in  trade, 
to  be  taken  up  for  a  temporary  interest  and  dissolved  at  the  fancy  of  the 
parties.  We  look  upon  it  with  other  reverence,  because  it  is  not  a  part 
nership  in  things  subservient  only  to  a  gross  animal  existence  of  a  perish 
able  nature.  It  is  a  partnership  in  all  science  ;  a  partnership  in  all  art ; 
a  partnership  in  every  virtue  and  in  all  perfection.  As  the  ends  of  such 
a  partnership  cannot  be  obtained  in  many  generations,  it  becomes  a  part 
nership  not  only  between  those  who  are  living,  but  between  those  who  are 
living,  those  who  are  dead,  and  those  who  are  to  be  born.  Each  contract 
of  each  State  is  but  a  clause  in  the  great  primeval  contract  of  ETERNAL 
SOCIETY,  linking  the  lower  with  the  higher  natures,  connecting  the  visible 
14 


210  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

with  the  invisible  world,  according  to  a  fixed  compact,  sanctioned  by  the 
inviolable  oath  which  holds  all  physical,  all  moral  natures  each  in  their 
appointed  place.  Thus  regarding  our  NATIONALITY  as  more  than  a  life, 
as  the  association  of  many  lives  in  one,  as  an  immortality  rather  than  a 
life,  the  people  of  this  country  Avill  cling  to  it  with  a  tenacity  of  purpose 
and  an  energy  of  will  as  to  the  very  cross  of  their  temporal  salvation,  and 
revere  it  as  the  impersonation  of  their  sovereign  upon  earth,  whose  throne 
is  this  goodly  land,  and  whose  mighty  minstrelsy,  ever  playing  before  it, 
is  the  voice  of  an  intelligent,  happy,  and  free  people ! 


Y. 
EULOGY  OF  STEPHEN  ARNOLD  DOUGLAS. 

Delivered  in  the  Souse  of  Representatives  on  the  9th  of  July,  1861. 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  Ohio  is  not  separated  from  Kentucky,  either  in  the 
estimate  of  Judge  DOUGLAS,  which  has  been  so  eloquently  pronounced  by 
the  distinguished  statesman  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN]  who  has  just  taken  his 
seat,  or  in  the  grief  which  has  been  expressed  for  the  premature  closing 
of  his  illustrious  career.  That  career  closed  with  the  opening  of  this 
eventful  summer.  It  abounded  in  friendships,  services,  and  ambitions. 
It  ended  while  he  was  enjoying  the  tumult  of  universal  acclaim,  and 
when  all  felt  the  need  of  its  continuance.  Labor  paused  in  its  toil, 
bankers  shut  their  offices  and  merchants  their  stores,  lawyers  and  judges 
adjourned  their  courts,  ministers  added  new  fervor  to  prayer,  partisans 
united  in  hushed  regret,  and  soldiers  draped  the  flag  in  crape,  to  bear 
their  part  in  the  great  grief  of  the  nation.  He  died  in  the  midst  of  the 
people  who  had  honored  him  for  a  generation  ;  in  the  city  whose  growth 
had  been  fostered  by  his  vigilance  ;  in  the  State  whose  prairies  were  famil 
iar  to  his  eye  from  earliest  manhood  ;  and  in  that  great  Northwest,  whose 
commercial,  agricultural,  physical,  and  imperial  greatness  was  the  pride 
of  his  heart  and  the  type  of  his  own  character.  There  was  in  him  a  quick 
maturity  of  growth,  a  fertility  of  resource,  and  a  sturdiness  of  energy, 
which  made  his  life  the  microcosm  of  that  great  section  with  which  he  was 
so  closely  identified.  That  mind  which  had  few  equals,  and  that  will 
which  had  no  conqueror,  save  in  the  grave,  wrere  at  last  wrung  from  his 
iron  frame.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  he  lies  pulseless  in  his  sepulchre  at 
Cottage  Grove.  It  is  sad  to  feel  that  the  summer  wind  which  waves  the 
grass  and  flowers  of  his  loved  prairies  has,  in  its  low  wail,  an  elegy  to  the 
departed  statesman.  Well  might  the  waters  of  the  lake,  just  before  his 
death,  as  if  premonitory  of  some  great  sacrifice,  swell  in  mysterious  emo 
tion.  These  poor  panegyrics,  from  manuscript  and  memory,  fail  to  express 
the  loss  which  those  feel  who  knew  him  best.  One  would  wish  for  the 
eloquence  of  Bossuet,  or  the  muse  of  Spenser  or  Tennyson,  to  fell  in  the 
poetry  of  sorrow  the  infinite  woe  which  would  wreak  itself  upon  expression. 
For  weeks  the  public  have  mourned  him  as  a  loss  so  grievous  as  to  be 
irreparable  in  this  trying  time  of  the  Republic.  The  lapse  of  time  only 


212  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 

adds  to  the  weight  of  the  bereavement.  The  tears  which  fell  around  his 
bedside  and  on  his  bier  still 

"  Weep  a  loss  forever  new." 

With  every  passing  day  we  turn,  but  turn  in  vain,  to  catch  his  hopeful 
tone,  his  discriminating  judgment,  his  philosophic  foresight,  and  his 
courageous  patriotism.  They  only  come  to  us  in  memory  and  in  mourn 
ing.  His  lips  are  sealed ;  his  eye  is  dim ;  his  brain  is  shrouded ;  his 
heart  is  still ;  and  the  nation  stands  with  throbbing  heart  at  his  grave. 
41  His  virtue  is  treasured  in  our  hearts  ;  his  death  is  our  despair."  It  is 
no  mere  ceremonial,  therefore,  that  the  national  Legislature,  in  whose 
counsels  he  has  taken  so  prominent  a  part,  should  pause,  even  in  extraor 
dinary  session,  to  bestow  that  homage  which  friendship,  intellect,  and 
patriotism  ever  offer  to  the  true  man,  the  gifted  soul,  and  the  enlight 
ened  statesman. 

Judge  DOUGLAS  struggled  into  greatness.  He  had  no  avenue  to  honor 
except  that  which  was  open  to  all.  The  power  and  patronage  which 
aided  him,  he  created  ;  and  the  wealth  which  he  made  and  spent  so  freely, 
came  from  no  ancestral  hand.  Part  teacher  and  part  cabinet  maker,  he 
left  the  East  for  the  ruder  collisions  of  border  life.  There  he  grew  up 
under  the  adversities  which  strengthened  him  into  a  vigorous  and  early 
maturity.  His  own  manhood  soon  made  itself  felt.  He  became  the  po 
litical  necessity  of  his  State.  He  filled  many  of  its  most  important  offices 
before  he  became  nationally  known.  The  Democratic  people  of  the  Union 
were  soon  attracted  to  him.  As  early  as  1848  they  began  to  think  of 
him  as  their  candidate  for  President ;  while,  in  1852,  the  Democratic 
Review  hailed  him  as  the  coming  man ;  a  man  who  had  no  grandfather 
or  other  incident  of  biographical  puffery  ;  as  one  whose  genealogical  tree 
had  been  sawed  up ;  as  a  graduate  from  the  university  of  the  lathe ;  as 
one  with  the  materials,  the  mind,  and  the  energy  to  shape,  fashion,  and 
make  enduring,  a  platform  of  his  own. 

No  notice  of  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  is  complete  which  does  not  remark 
upon  the  singular  magnetism  of  his  personal  presence,  the  talismanic 
touch  of  his  kindly  hand,  the  gentle  amenities  of  his  domestic  life,  and  the 
ineradicable  clasp  of  his  friendships.  It  may  not  be  improper  to  refer  to 
the  fact  that  I  was  one  among  the  many  young  men  of  the  West  who 
were  bound  to  him  by  a  tie  of  friendship  and  a  spell  of  enthusiasm  which 
death  has  no  power  to  break.  These  are  the  pearls  beneath  the  rough  shell 
of  his  political  life.  There  are  many  here  who  will  understand  me,  when 
I  recall  the  gentle  tone  and  the  cordial  greeting  with  which  he  used  to  woo 
and  win  and  hold  the  young  partisans  of  his  faith,  and  the  warm  promot 
ers  of  his  success.  Ever  ready  with  his  counsel,  his  means,  and  his  ener 
gies,  he  led  them  as  much  by  the  persuasiveness  of  his  heart  as  the  logic 
of  his  head.  The  same  gentle  demeanor  which  fondled  his  children  and 
taught  them  a  beauty  of  manners  beyond  all  praise,  the  same  pure  respect 
and  tenderness  with  which  he  treated  his  noble  wife  and  companion, 
silvered  the  cords  of  attachment  which  bound  his  friends  to  him,  and  made 
his  home  at  Washington  and  his  sojourns  elsewhere  recollections  as  sweet 
as  memory  can  embalm. 

While  others  bear  testimony  to  his  moral  heroism,  intellectual  prowess, 


EULOGY   OF    STEPHEN   ARNOLD   DOUGLAS.  213 

fixedness  of  principle,  and  unstained  patriotism,  it  seems  that  his  spirit, 
if  it  hovers  over  this  scene  of  his  obsequies,  would  receive  with  purest 
delight  these  tributes  of  friendly  affection.  I  recall  in  my  own  experience, 
which  runs  with  unbroken  association  of  friendship  with  him  from  the 
first  year  of  my  political  life,  many  of  his  acts  of  unselfish  devotion  ;  many 
words  outspoken  to  the  public,  which  the  mere  designing  politician  would 
not  have  uttered ;  many  tenders  of  aid  and  counsel,  which  were  the  more 
grateful  because  unsought,  and  the  more  serviceable  because  they  came 
from  him.  It  is  one  of  the  felicities  of  my  life  that  I  have  been  the  recip 
ient  of  his  kindness  and  confidence  ;  and  that  the  people  whom  I  represent 
were  cherished  by  him,  as  he  was  by  them,  with  the  steadfastness  of  unal 
loyed  devotion. 

It  was  his  pleasure  very  often  to  sojourn  in  the  capital  city  of  Ohio, 
where,  regardless  of  party,  the  people  paid  him  the  respect  due  to  his 
character  and  services.  Among  the  last  of  the  associations  which  he  had 
with  Ohio  was  his  address,  a  few  weeks  before  his  death,  to  the  people  at 
its  capital,  on  the  invitation  of  the  State  Legislature.  His  stirring  tones 
still  thrill  on  the  air,  protesting  for  the  right  and  might  of  the  Great  West 
to  egress  through  our  rivers  and  highways  to  the  sea  against  all  hostile 
obstruction,  and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Government,  threatened  by 
the  great  revolution  which  yet  surrounds  us.  His  last  utterance  was  the 
fit  climax  of  a  life  devoted  to  the  study  of  this  Government,  and  of  a 
patriotism  which  never  swerved  from  its  love  for  the  Union.  It  was 
worth  whole  battalions  of  armed  men.  A  word  from  him  made  calm 
from  tempest,  and  resolved  doubt  into  duty.  His  thought  swayed  the 
tides  of  public  opinion  as  vassals  to  his  will.  After  his  hot  contests  iu 
the  Senate,  during  the  first  session  of  the  last  Congress  ;  after  his  Harper 
essay  in  development  of  his  political  theories  ;  after  his  heroic  campaign  in 
the  South,  closing  at  Norfolk  in  his  courageous  reply  to  the  questions  of 
the  disunionists ;  after  his  struggles  of  last  winter,  when  he  strung  his  en 
ergies  to  the  utmost  in  pleading  for  peace  and  conciliation  ;  after  all  had 
failed,  and  secession  stalked  with  haughty  head  through  the  land,  and  even 
jeoparded  this  metropolis  of  the  nation,  it  was  the  consummate  glory  of 
his  life  to  have  given  his  most  emphatic  utterance  for  the,  maintenance  of 
the  Government,  even  though  its  administration  was  committed  to  his  old 
political  antagonist,  and  although  he  knew  that  such  expressions  imperil 
led  the  lives  of  a  hundred  thousand  of  his  friends. 

Scarcely  with  any  of  our  public  men  can  DOUGLAS  be  compared. 
The  people  like  to  compare  him  to  Jackson,  for  his  energy  and  honesty. 
He  was  like  the  great  triumvirate — Clay,  Webster,  and  Calhoun — but 
"  like  in  difference."  Like  them  in  his  gift  of  political  foresight,  still  he 
had  a  power  over  the  masses  possessed  by  neither.  Like  Clay,  in  his 
charm  to  make  and  hold  friends  and  to  lead  his  party ;  like  Webster,  in 
the  massive  substance  of  his  thought,  clothed  in  apt  political  words  ;  like 
Calhoun,  in  the  tenacity  of  his  purpose  and  the  subtlety  of  his  dialectics  ; 
he  yet  surpassed  them  all  in  the  homely  sense,  the  sturdy  strength,  and 
indomitable  persistence  with  which  he  wielded  the  masses  and  electrified 
the  Senate. 

In  the  onslaught  of  debate  he  was  ever  foremost ;  his  crest  high  and 
his  falchion  keen.  Whether  his  antagonists  numbered  two  or  ten,  whether 


214:  EIGHT    YEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 

the  whole  of  the  Senate  were  against  him,  he  could  "  take  a  raking  fire 
at  the  whole  group."  Like  the  shrouded  Junius.  he  dared  Commons, 
Lords,  and  King,  to  the  encounter ;  but  unlike  that  terrible  shadow,  he 
sought  no  craven  covert,  but  fought  in  the  open  lists,  with  a  muscular  and 
mental  might  which  defied  the  unreasoning  cries  of  the  mob  and  rolled 
back  the  thunders  of  the  Executive  anathema  ! 

DOUGLAS  was  no  scholar,  in  the  pedantic  sense  of  the  term.  His  read 
ing  was  neither  classical  nor  varied.  Neither  was  he  a  sciolist.  His  re 
searches  were  ever  in  the  line  of  his  duty,  but  therein  they  were  thorough. 
His  library  was  never  clear  from  dust.  His  favorite  volume  was  the 
book  of  human  nature,  which  he  consulted  without  much  regard  to  the 
binding.  He  was  skilled  in  the  contests  of  the  bar ;  but  he  was  more 
than  a  lawyer — he  easily  separated  the  rubbish  of  the  law  from  its  essence. 
As  a  jurist,  his  decisions  were  not  essays ;  they  had  in  them  something 
decisive,  after  the  manner  of  the  best  English  judges.  As  a  legislator, 
his  practicalness  cut  away  the  entanglements  of  theoretic  learning  and 
ancient  precedent,  and  brought  his  mind  into  the  presence  of  the  thing  to 
be  done  or  undone.  Hence  he  never  criticized  a  wrong  for  which  he  did 
not  provide  a  remedy.  He  never  discussed  a  question  that  he  did  not 
propose  a  measure. 

His  style  was  of  that  plain  and  tough  fibre  which  needed  no  ornament. 
He  had  a  felicity  in  the  use  of  political  language  never  equalled  by  any 
public  man.  He  had  the  right  word  for  the  right  place.  His  interroga 
tive  method,  and  his  ready  and  fit  replies,  gave  dramatic  vivacity  to  his 
debates.  Hence  the  newspapers  readily  copied  them,  and  the  people  re- 
tentively  remembered  them.  Gleams  of  humor  were  not  infrequent  in  his 
speeches,  as  in  his  conversation.  His  logic  had  the  reach  of  the  rifled  can 
non,  which  annihilated  while  it  silenced  the  batteries  of  his  opponents. 

DOUGLAS  was  a  partisan  ;  but  he  never  wore  his  party  uniform  when 
his  country  was  in  danger.  His  zeal,  like  all  excess,  may  have  had  its 
defect ;  but  to  him  who  observes  the  symmetry  and  magnanimity  of  his 
life,  it  will  appear  that  he  always  strove  to  make  his  party  conservative 
of  his  country.  The  tenacity  with  which  he  clung  to  his  theory  of  terri 
torial  government,  and  the  extension  of  suffrage,  on  local  questions,  from 
State  to  Territory,  and  the  absolute  non-intervention  by  Congress  for  the 
sake  of  peace  and  union,  while  it  made  him  enemies,  increased  the  admi 
ration  of  his  friends.  His  nature  shines  out  with  its  loftiest  grace  and 
courage  in  his  debates  on  these  themes,  so  nearly  connected  as  he  thought 
them  with  the  stability  of  the  Republic. 

If  it  be  that  every  true  man  is  himself  a  cause,  a  country,  or  an  age  ; 
if  the  height  of  a  nation  is  the  altitude  of  its  best  men,  then,  indeed,  are  these 
enlarged  liberalities,  which  are  now  fixed  as  American  institutions,  but  the 
lengthened  shadow  of  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS.  This  is  the  cause — self- 
government  in  State  and  Territory — with  which  he  would  love  most  to 
be  identified  in  his  country's  history.  He  was  ready  to  follow  it  to  any 
logical  conclusion,  having  faith  in  it  as  a  principle  of  repose,  justice,  and 
union.  Placed  at  the  head  of  thd  Territorial  Committee,  it  was  his  hand 
which,  on  this  basis,  fashioned  Territory  after  Territory,  and  led  £>tate 
after  State  into  the  Union.  The  latest  constellation,  formed  by  California, 
Iowa,  Oregon,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  I  may  add  Kansas,  received 


EULOGY   OF   STEPHEN   ARNOLD   DOUGLAS.  215 

their  charter  to  shine  and  revolve  under  his  hand.  These  States,  faithful 
to  his  fostering,  will  ever  remain  as  monuments  of  his  greatness  ! 

His  comprehensive  forecast  was  exhibited  in  his  speech  on  the  Clayton 
and  Bulwer  treaty,  on  the  4th  of  March,  1853  ;  wherein  he  enforced  a 
continental  policy  suitable  and  honorable  to  the  New  "World  and  its  des 
tiny,  now  so  unhappily  obscured.  That  speech  was  regarded  by  Judge 
DOUGLAS  as  among  the  most  valuable,  as  I  think  it  the  most  finished  and 
cogent  speech  of  his  life.  His  philippic  against  England,  which  to-day 
has  its  vindication  in  her  selfish  conduct  towards  us,  will  remind  the 
scholar  of  Demosthenes,  while  his  enlarged  philosophy  has  the  sweep  and 
dignity  of  Edmund  Burke.  It  was  this  speech  which  gave  to  DOUGLAS 
the  heart  of  Young  America.  He  refused  to  prescribe  limits  to  the  area 
over  which  Democratic  principles  might  safely  spread.  "  I  know  not 
what  our  destiny  may  be.  But,"  he  continued,  "  I  try  to  keep  up  with 
the  spirit  of  the  age  ;  to  keep  in  view  the  history  of  the  country  ;  see  what 
we  have  done,  whither  we  are  going,  and  with  what  velocity  we  are  mov 
ing,  in  order  to  be  prepared  for  those  events  which  it  is  not  in  the  power 
of  man  to  thwart."  He  would  not  then  see  the  limits  of  this  giant  Repub 
lic  fettered  by  treaty ;  neither  would  he  in  1861  see  them  curtailed  by 
treachery.  If  he  were  alive  to-day,  he  would  repeat  with  new  emphasis 
his  warning  against  England  and  her  unforgiving  spite,  wounded  pride, 
and  selfish  policy.  "When,  in  1847,  he  advocated  the  policy  of  terminating 
her  joint  occupation  with  us  of  Oregon,  he  was  ready  to  back  it  by  mili 
tary  force  ;  and  if  war  should  result,  "  we  might  drive  Great  Britain  and 
the  last  vestiges  of  royal  authority  from  the  continent  of  North  America, 
and  make  the  United  States  an  ocean-bound  Republic  !  " 

With  ready  tact  and  good  sense  he  brought  to  the  fiscal  and  com 
mercial  problems  of  the  country  views  suitable  to  this  age  of  free  inter 
change  and  scientific  advancement.  His  position  on  the  Foreign  Affairs 
Committee  of  the  Senate  gave  him  a  scope  of  view  abroad,  which  was 
enriched  by  European  travel  and  historic  research,  and  which  he  ever 
used  for  the  advancement  of  our  flag  and  honor  among  the  nations.  His 
knowledge  of  our  domestic  troubles,  with  their  hidden  rocks  and  horrid 
breakers,  and  the  measures  he  proposed  to  remove  them,  show  that  he 
was  a  statesman  of  the  highest  rank,  fit  for  calm  or  storm. 

Some  have  lamented  his  death  now  as  untimely  and  unfortunate  for 
his  own  fame,  since  it  has  happened  just  at  the  moment  when  the  politician 
was  lost  in  the  patriot,  and  when  he  had  a  chance  to  atone  for  past  error 
by  new  devotion.  Mr.  Speaker,  men  do  not  change  their  natures  so 
easily.  The  DOUGLAS  of  1861  was  the  DOUGLAS  of  1850,  1854,  and 
1858.  The  patriot  who  denounced  this  great  rebellion  was  the  patriot  in 
every  fold  and  lineament  of  his  character.  There  is  not  a  page  of  his 
history  that  we  can  afford  to  blot.  The  words  which  escaped  him  in  the 
delirium  of  his  last  days — when  he  heard  the  "  battle  afar  off,  the  thunder 
of  the  captains,  and  the  shouting " — were  the  key-note  to  a  harmonious 
life.  Observant  of  the  insidious  processes  North  and  South  which  have 
led  us  to  this  civil  war,  he  ever  strove,  by  adjustment,  to  avoid  their  dis 
astrous  effects.  History  will  be  false  to  her  trust,  if  she  does  not  write 
that  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  was  a  patriot  of  matchless  purity,  and  a  states 
man  who,  foreseeing  and  warning,  tried  his  utmost  to  avert  the  dangers 


216  EIGUT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

which  are  now  so  hard  to  repress.  Nor  will  she  permit  those  who  now 
praise  his  last  great  effort  for  the  Union  to  qualify  it  by  sinister  reflections 
upon  his  former  conduct ;  for  thus  they  tarnish  the  lustre  of  a  life  devoted, 
in  peace  and  in  war,  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  His  fame  never 
had  eclipse.  Its  disk  has  been  ever  bright  to  the  eye  of  history.  It  sank 
below  the  horizon,  like  the  sun  of  the  Morea,  full-orbed,  and  in  the  full  blaze 
of  its  splendor.  How  much  we  shall  miss  him  here  !  How  can  we,  his 
associates,  do  without  his  counsel?  No  longer  does  the  murmur  go 
round  that  DOUGLAS  is  speaking  in  the  Senate  ;  no  longer  does  the  House 
become  quorumless  to  listen  to  his  voice  !  His  death  is  like  the  dissolu 
tion  of  a  political  organism.  Indeed,  we  could  better  afford  to  lose  a 
sphere  of  stars  from  our  flag ;  for  these  might  wander  to  return.  But 
DOUGLAS  cannot  be  brought  back  to  us.  He  who  had  such  a  defiant 
power,  with  the  "  thews  of  Anakina  and  the  pulses  of  a  Titan's  heart," 
has  gone  upon  a  returnless  journey.  How  much  shall  we  miss  him  now ! 
We  have  so  long  regarded  the  political,  social,  geographical,  and  com 
mercial  necessities  to  which  our  Government  was  adapted  as  rendering 
it  eternal,  that  its  present  condition  calls  for  new  and  rare  elements  of 
statesmanship.  Are  we  equal  to  the  time  and  the  trust  ?  Oh  !  for  a 
Clay,  a  Webster,  a  DOUGLAS,  in  this  great  ordeal  of  constitutional  free 
dom  !  While  the  country  is  entangled  by  these  serpents  of  revolution, 
we  shall  miss  the  giant — the  Hercules  of  the  West — whose  limbs  had 
grown  sinewy  in  strangling  the  poisonous  brood  ! 

Who  is  left  to  take  his  place  ?  Alas !  he  has  no  successor.  His 
eclipse  is  painfully  palpable,  since  it  makes  more  obscure  the  path  by 
which  our  alienated  brethren  may  return.  Many  Union  men,  friends  of 
DOUGLAS  in  the  South,  heard  of  his  demise  as  the  death  knell  of  their 
loyal  hope.  Who,  who  can  take  his  place?  The  great  men  of  1850, 
who  were  his  mates  in  the  Senate,  are  gone,  wre  trust,  to  that  better  Union 
above,  where  there  are  no  distracting  counsels — all,  all  gone  !  All?  No  ! 
thank  Heaven !  Kentucky  still  spares  to  us  one  of  kindred  patriotism, 
fashioned  in  the  better  mould  of  an  earlier  day — the  distinguished  states 
man  who  has  just  spoken  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN],  whose  praise  of  DOUGLAS 
living  I  loved  to  quote,  and  whose  praise  of  DOUGLAS  dead,  to  which  we 
have  just  listened,  "  laudari  a  viro  laudato"  is  praise  indeed  ;  CRITTEN 
DEN  still  stands  here,  lifting  on  high  his  whitened  head,  like  a  Pharos  in 
the  sea,  to  guide  our  storm-tossed  and  storm-tattered  vessel  to  its  haven 
of  rest.  His  feet  tread  closely  upon  the  retreating  steps  of  our  states 
man  of  the  West.  In  the  order  of  nature,  we  cannot  have  him  long. 
Already  his  hand  is  outstretched  into  the  other  world  to  grasp  the  hand 
of  DOUGLAS  !  While  we  have  him,  let  us  heed  his  warning,  learn  from 
his  lips  the  lessons  of  moderation  and  loyalty  of  the  elder  days,  and  do 
all  and  do  it  nobly  for  our  beloved  Republic  ! 

In  conclusion,  sir,  we  can  only  worthily  praise  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 
by  doing  something  to  carry  out  the  will  which  he  left  his  children  and 
his  country : 

"  Love  and  uphold  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

I  speak  it  all  reverently  when  I  say  that  this  was  his  religion.  He 
had  faith  in  that 


EULOGY   OF   STEPHEN  AENOLD  DOUGLAS.  217 

"  creed  of  creeds, 
The  loveliness  of  perfect  deeds." 

I  would  not  seek  to  disclose  the  future  to  which  God  has  consigned 
him  in  the  mysterious  order  of  his  providence  ;  but  such  virtue  as  his  can 
not  die.  It  begins  to  live  most  in  death.  Of  it  may  be  said,  as  the  lau 
reate  of  England  sang,  that  transplanted  human  worth  will  bloom,  to 
profit,  otherwhere.  The  distinguished  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr. 
CRITTENDEN]  has  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  mind  of  DOUGLAS  expanded 
with  his  public  service.  It  has  been  my  own  humble  observation  that  he 
was  one  among  the  few  public  men  who'  grew  in  moral  height  with  men 
tal  breadth.  Year  after  year  inspired  him  with  more  of  reverence  and 
charity;  while  his  "psalm  of  life"  found  expression  in  daily  duty  done. 
He  never  shrank  from  the  dust  and  heat  of  active  life.  He  most  desired 
to  live  when  dangers  were  gathering  thickest.  He  would  not  ask  from 
us  to-day  tears  and  plaints,  but  words  which  bear  the  spirit  of  great  deeds, 
"  tremendous  and  stupendous "  efforts  to  save  the  Government  he  loved 
so  well.  We  may  toll  the  slow  bell  for  his  noble  spirit ;  we  may  crape 
the  arm  in  token  of  our  woe  ;  we  may,  while  we  think  of  the  meannesses 
of  our  politics  and  the  distractions  of  our  country,  congratulate  him  that 
he  is  wrapped  in  his  shroud,  forever  safe  in  the  memory  of  the  just :  but 
if  we  would  worthily  honor  him.  let  us  moderate  the  heats  of  party  strife  ; 
enlarge  our  view  of  national  affairs  ;  emulate  his  clear-eyed  patriotism, 
which  saw  in  no  section  his  country,  but  loved  all  sections  alike  ;  and  hold 
up  his  life,  so  fruitful  in  wisdom  beyond  his  years,  for  the  admiration  of 
the  old  ;  and  picture  him  for  the  imitation  of  the  young  as  that 

"  Divinely  gifted  man 
Whose  life  in  low  estate  began ; 
Who  grasped  the  skirts  of  happy  chance, 
Breasted  the  blows  of  circumstance, 

And  made  by  force  his  merit  known ; 
And  lived  to  clutch  the  golden  keys, 
To  mould  a  mighty  State's  decrees, 
-  And  shape  the  whisper  of  the  throne ; 
And  moving  up  from  high  to  higher, 

Becomes  on  fortune's  crowning  slope 

The  pillar  of  a  people's  hope, 
The  centre  of  a  world's  desire  ! " 

But,  sir,  no  language,  either  in  prose  or  verse,  can  portray  the  great 
ness  of  his  loss.  His  fame  is  printed  in  the  hearts  of  the  people.  From 
the  Green  Mountains  of  his  native  State  to  the  white  tops  of  the  Pacific 
Sierras,  while  the  heavens  bend  above  our  land  to  bless  it,  the  rivers  roll 
and  the  mountains  stand  to  unite  it,  or  the  ceaseless  interchange  of  traffic 
and  thought  goes  on  by  sea  and  rail,  by  telegraph  or  post — the  people  of 
America,  from  whose  midst,  as  a  poor  boy,  by  his  own  self-reliance,  he 
sprung,  will  preserve  in  the  Pantheon  of  their  hearts,  to  an  immortal 
memory,  the  name  of  STEPHEN  ARNOLD  DOUGLAS. 


VI. 
CIVIL    WAR. 

REPLY  TO  HON.  MR.  GURLEY BULL  RUN  DEPICTED — CONGRESSMEN  ON  THE 

FIELD — EAGLES  AND  DOVES — WARRIORS  AND  MINISTERS — VINDICATION 
OP  GEN.  MCCLELLAN — CONGRESSIONAL  WAR  CRITICS — PERVERSION  AND 
PROLONGATION  OF  THE  WAR. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  January  31,  1862. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  :  I  obtained  the  floor  on  yesterday  to  give  a  prompt 
answer  to  the  elaborate  attack  made  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  GURLEY]  on 
General  McClellan.  I  was  not  aware  that  my  colleague  had  thus  pre 
pared  himself,  although  it  was  bruited  about  that  we  were  to  have  a  dis 
sertation  on  the  conduct  of  this  war  which  would  annihilate  its  present 
managers.  I  wish  that  my  colleague  could  plead  the  impulse  of  the  mo 
ment  for  his  speech ;  but  I  give  more  significance  to  his  labored  effort  be 
cause  it  betokens  a  plan — one  in  which  my  colleague  plays  his  role — to 
get  rid  of  the  gallant  Major-General  in  whom  repose  the  hopes  and  the 
confidence  of  the  people.  If  his  speech  had  been  made  by  a  Democrat, 
it  would  have  been  said  that  it  was  an  attempt  to  aid  secession  ;  to  cripple 
our  credit  at  home  and  our  honor  abroad  ;  to  undermine  the  popular  faith 
in  the  power  of  the  Government  to  conquer  peace  and  restore  the  Union. 
It  would  have  deserved,  according  to  the  practice,  a  prison  in  a  sea-bound 
castle. 

I  do  not  understand,  nor  will  I  attempt  to  analyze,  the  motives  of  my 
colleague.  If  I  were  to  judge  of  his  intent  by  the  effect  of  his  speech,  he 
would  discourage  the  army  in  their  efforts,  and  the  people  in  their  payment 
of  taxes.  His  speech  will  aid  the  rebellion,  not  so  much  because  it  was 
spoken  by  him,  as  because  it  seems  to  be  a  part  of  a  plan,  outside  and  in 
side  of  this  House,  to  beget  distrust  and  sow  discord.  I  do  not  know,  sir, 
how  much  weight  will  be  attributed  to  my  colleague's  military  strictures. 
If  his  facts  are  no  better  than  his  conclusions — and  I  will  demonstrate  that 
neither  are  correct — his  speech  will  only  go  for  what  it  is  worth — the 
scolding  of  an  unmilitary  Congressman.  My  colleague  began  with  the 
cry  that  generals  are  nothing  ;  that  if  any  general  was  incompetent,  to  take 
him  away.  He  read  from  the  Richmond  "  Dispatch"  to  show  the  errors 
which  our  generals  had  committed.  The  article  read  was  so  full  of  slan- 


CIVIL   WAK.  219 

der  and  falsehood  that  he  himself  corrected  a  part  of  it.  He  charged  the 
Commander-in-Chief  with  causelessly  holding  back  our  eager  soldiers  for 
months.  He  charged  him  with  denying  to  them  the  victory  which  was 
in  their  reach.  He  said  that  no  man  living  was  lit  to  command  over 
three  hundred  thousand. 

Mr.  GURLEY.     I  said  six  hundred  thousand. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  read  the  gentleman's  speech  in  the  "  Globe,"  and  I  am 
right.  He  further  said  that  it  was  not  only  anti-republican  and  unwise, 
but  alarming  to  the  last  degree.  He  found  fault  with  the  General's  plan — 
as  he  claimed  to  know  it — to  attack  the  enemy's  whole  line  at  once  at  all 
points.  He  said  this  was  unwise  because  it  was  impossible.  He  did  not 
approve  of  the  General's  "  nice  and  precise  adjustment  of  military  affairs  " 
before  the  army  moved.  He  wanted  the  army  to  overwhelm  the  enemy 
without  waiting  for  orders  from  Washington  City.  He  then  undertook,  by 
a  statement  of  facts  as  to  the  affairs  at  Romney,  in  Missouri,  and  Kentucky, 
to  depreciate  the  character  of  the  Commander-in-Chief.  He  demanded 
that  the  army  should  move  at  all  hazards,  unrestrained  by  a  single  hand. 
He  thought  he  saw  in  the  accession  of  Mr.  Stanton  a  streak  of  sunlight, 
for  he  (Mr.  Stanton)  was  like  brave  BEN  WADE,  of  Ohio.  He  thought, 
if  we  did  not  move  soon,  our  reputation  as  a  military  people  would  about 
equal  that  of  the  Chinese  ;  and  then  my  colleague  wound  up  his  speech 
by  the  figure  of  the  anaconda,  in  which  he  tried  to  be  humorous  at  the 
expense  of  General  Scott,  who  originated  the  trope  ;  and  finally  he  was 
for  stirring  up  the  anaconda,  even  though,  like  the  snakes  from  Tenedos 
in  Virgil,  it  wound  its  coils  around  the  most  sacred  of  our  hopes  to  crush 
them  forever.  This  is  the  analysis  of  my  colleague's  speech. 

On  the  very  eve,  sir,  of  the  most  important  movements,  and  when, 
too,  our  army  in  one  section  has  already  given  earnest  in  carrying  out 
successfully  one  part  of  General  McClellan's  scheme,  we  have  this  most 
inopportune  display  of  impatience.  I  would  rather  have  heard  it  from 
any  other  than  an  Ohio  member.  Ohio  gave  McClellan  his  first  com 
mission.  I  remember  to  have  seen  him  when  he  came  with  alacrity  to 
her  capital  to  accept  this  mark  of  our  Governor's  trust.  How  well  he 
repaid  the  confidence,  Western  Virginia  can  answer  ;  and  if  all  his  plans 
there  had  been  carried  out  by  subordinates  with  a  vigor  equal  to  their 
wisdom,  we  would  have  had  less  trouble  and  more  glory  in  that  campaign. 

As  to  the  advent  of  the  new  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Stanton,  whom 
my  colleague  hails  as  a  "  streak  of  light"  in  the  gloom,  I  do  not  believe 
that  he  will  delight  in  any  such  hailing,  coupled  with  such  railing  at  his 
friend,  the  General.  .  It  is  too  much  like  the  "  All  hail ! "  of  the  witches 
to  Macbeth.  [Laughter.]  There  lurks  a  sinister  object  in  this  congrat 
ulation.  It  was  intended  as  a  depreciation  of  McClellan ;  as  if  the  er 
rors  and  incompetency  of  the  late  Secretary  of  War  ought  to  be  shared 
by  the  General.  I,  sir,  as  much  and  more  sincerely  than  my  colleague, 
welcome  the  new  Secretary.  But  my  colleague  would  hurry  the  army 
into  a  movement  now  "  at  all  hazards,"  because  foreign  nations  may  soon 
interfere.  I  do  not  understand  this  logic.  He  would  have  us  risk  every 
thing  for  fear  of  trouble  from  abroad.  We  may  have  foreign  war ;  but 
this  nation  should  not  hazard  its  own  existence  from  a  servile  fear  of  Eng 
land  or  France.  If  he  had  been  a  Democrat,  he  would  not  have  been  so 


220  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

fearful  of  every  movement  abroad.  Choate  said  he  loved  the  old  De 
mocracy  because  they  had  "  a  gay  and  festive  defiance  of  foreign  dicta 
tion." 

Mr.  GURLEY.     That  is  the  party  of  which  I  was  a  member. 

Mr.  Cox.  Then  my  colleague  has  been  a  renegade  to  his  ancient 
faith.  I  am  sorry  for  it.  We  would  be  unworthy  of  our  fathers  and  of 
our  land  did  we  fire  our  own  house  over  our  heads  because  we  may  fear 
that  a  neighbor  will  come  some  night  to  despoil  it. 

My  colleague  objects  to  the  organization  of  an  army  with  one  head. 
He  wants  a  many-headed  arrangement,  with,  I  suppose,  distracting  coun 
sels.  Utterly  unconscious  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  unity  of  move 
ment  by  our  armies,  under  one  direction,  my  colleague,  to  strike  at  Gen 
eral  McClellan,  would  change  the  military  system  which  has  obtained 
from  the  time  war  began  or  armies  were  levied.  My  colleague  has  a  mil 
itary  wisdom  beyond  all  human  comprehension.  Because  our  army  is 
large  we  must,  on  this  logic,  dispense  with  its  proper  organization.  There 
is  the  more  need  of  one  executive  head  to  so  vast  an  array  as  this  army 
of  half  a  million. 

My  colleague,  in  this  attack  upon  the  general  in  command,  meant  to 
attack  also  the  President,  or  he  meant  nothing.  He  knew  that  the  Presi 
dent  was  General  McClellan's  superior  officer ;  that  all  that  McClellan 
had  done  or  had  not  done  was  approved  by  the  President.  He  was,  how 
ever,  gracious  enough  to  say  that  the  President  would  not  set  up  his  opinion 
in  military  matters  in  antagonism  to  his  general-in-chief ;  and  he  would, 
no  doubt,  for  this,  commend  the  good  sense  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  as  I  do. 
But  if  the  President  in  thus  acting  was  sensible,  what  sort  of  sense  is  it 
for  a  member  of  Congress,  whose  life  has  been  passed,  too,  in  thumping 
the  pulpit  desk  [laughter],  and  whose  thoughts  have  been  less  upon  the 
eagle  and  more  upon  the  dove,  to  set  up  his  opinion  against  that  of  the 
general  in  command?  If  it  were  not  bad  sense,  it  would  be  nonsense. 
Why  did  not  my  colleague,  if  his  motive  was  good,  go  to  the  President, 
and  with  his  array  of  maps,  telegraphs,  deeds  of  omission  and  commission, 
lay  before  the  President  his  military  conceptions  ?  Why  does  he  have  them 
delivered  here,  before  the  nation  ?  Was  it  to  display  his  military  erudition  ? 
Or  was  it  to  gratify  what  he  thinks  was  the  popular  prejudice  and  impa 
tience,  to  which  he  would  administer,  regardless  of  consequences  ?  Why 
did  he  not  go  to  General  McClellan  and  verify  his  facts  before  he  used 
them  for  the  public  disservice  ? 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  gentleman  had  been  a  skilful  commander,  or 
had,  like  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  ROSCOE  CONKLTNG],  the 
humane  motive  for  investigating  the  confessed  blunder  at  Ball's  Bluff,  in 
which  many  brave  men  were  lost,  I  could  tolerate  this  mischievous  line  of 
debate. 

But,  sir,  my  colleague  compels  me  to  examine  into  his  merits  as  a 
military  critic  particularly,  and  the  propriety  of  military  "  movements  " 
here  in  Congress  and  elsewhere  by  civilians.  My  colleague  will  admit 
that  he  is  not  a  military  man  by  education,  nor  a  soldier,  like  FalstafF,  on 
instinct.  [Laughter.]  His  profession  was  that  of  a  gospeller.  [Laugh 
ter.]  His  studies  do  not  fit  him  to  discuss  martial  subjects.  We  do  not 
go  to  a  blacksmith  to  have  our  watch  repaired,  nor  to  a  watchmaker  to 


CIVIL   WAK.  221 

have  our  horse  shod.  We  do  not  go  to  Carolina  for  cheese  [laughter], 
nor  to  the  Western  Reserve  for  cotton.  I  can  well  imagine  how  a  fine 
scholar,  as  is  my  colleague,  might,  like  Beaumont's  "  Elder  Brother,"  sit 
in  his  study,  mount  upon  the  wings  of  speculation,  and 

"  hourly  converse 

With  kings  and  emperors,  and  weigh  their  counsels, 
Calling  their  victories,  if  unjustly  got, 
Unto  a  strict  account,  and  in  his  fancy 
Deface  their  ill-placed  statues." 

But,  sir,  criticism  on  the  art  of  war,  to  be  valuable  now,  must  be 
backed  by  specific  study  and  experience.  What  has  been  the  study  and 
experience  of  my  colleague  ? 

The  country  was  thoroughly  disgusted  with  the  part  Congressmen 
played  at  Bull  Run.  [Laughter  in  the  galleries.]  It  may  be  remem 
bered  with  what  jocund  levity  the  House  adjourned  to  go  over  to  see  our 
army  march  upon  Richmond.  Not  one  of  us  ever  got  there,  except  my 
friend  from  New  York  [Mr.  ELY]  [laughter],  who  made  his  exile  so 
conspicuously  honorable,  in  the  use  he  made  of  it  in  behalf  of  his  fellow- 
prisoners.  The  House  may  remember  that  I  opposed  the  adjournment 
then  on  the  ground  that,  by  going  over  the  river,  we  would  only  get  in 
the  way  of  the  soldiers.  It  turned  out  that  the  soldiers  got  in  the  way  of 
the  Congressmen.  [Laughter,] 

I  have  a  letter,  written  by  a  member  of  this  House,  and  published  in 
an  Ohio  paper,  which  details,  with  graphic  accuracy,  the  part  displayed 
by  truculent  Congressmen  on  that  day.  I  will  have  it  read  at  the  Clerk's 
table. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows  : 

"  Just  as  the  dragoons  turned  back,  a  cry  was  raised  that  the  Black  Horse,  a  formida 
ble  body  of  the  rebel  cavalry  (and  these  were  part  of  them),  were  charging  upon  us,  and 
it  seemed  as  if  the  very  devil  of  panic  and  cowardice  seized  every  mortal  soldier,  officer, 
citizen,  and  teamster.  No  officer  tried  to  rally  the  soldiers,  or  do  any  thing,  except  to 
spring  and  run  toward  Centreville.  There  never  was  any  thing  like  it  for  causeless,  sheer, 
absolute,  absurd  cowardice,  or  rather  panic,  on  this  miserable  earth  before. 

"  Off  they  went,  one  and  all ;  off  down  the  highway,  over  across  fields  toward  the 
woods,  anywhere,  everywhere,  to  escape.  Whether  it  communicated  back  to  the  soldiers 
still  in  the  woods,  and  so  on  back  to  the  regiments  who  had  just  driven  off  the  rebels,  I 
do  not  know,  but  think  it  did  to  a  part  of  them,  for  a  share  of  our  army  seems  to  have 
been  demoralized,  if  not  broken  up. 

"  Well,  the  further  they  ran  the  more  frightened  they  grew,  and  although  we  moved 
on  as  rapidly  as  we  could,  the  fugitives  passed  us  by  scores.  To  enable  them  better  to 
run,  they  threw  away  their  blankets,  knapsacks,  canteens,  and  finally  muskets,  cartridge- 
boxes,  and  every  thing  else. 

"  We  called  to  them,  tried  to  tell  them  there  was  no  danger,  called  them  to  stop,  im 
plored  them  to  stand.  We  called  them  cowards,  denounced  them  in  the  most  offensive 
terms,  put  out  our  heavy  revolvers,  and  threatened  to  shoot  them,  but  all  in  vain  ;  a  cruel, 
crazy,  mad,  hopeless  panic  possessed  them,  and  communicated  to  everybody  about  in 
front  and  rear. 

"  The  heat  was  awful,  although  now  about  six  ;  the  men  were  exhausted — their  mouths 
gaped,  their  lips  cracked  and  blackened  with  the  powder  of  the  cartridges  they  had  bitten 
off  in  the  battle,  their  eyes  starting  in  frenzy  ;  no  mortal  ever  saw  such  a  mass  of  ghastly 
wretches. 

"  As  we  came  on,  borne  along  with  the  mass,  unable  to  go  ahead  or  pause,  or  draw 
out  of  it,  with  the  street  blocked  with  flying  baggage  wagons,  before  and  behind,  thunder 
ing  and  crashing  on,  we  were  every  moment  exposed  to  imminent  danger  of  being  upset, 
or  crushed,  or  of  breaking  down ;  and  for  the  first  time  on  this  strange  day  I  felt  a  little 


222  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

sinking  of  the  heart,  and  doubt  whether  we  could  avoid  destruction  in  the  immense  throng 
about  us ;  and  nothing  but  the  remarkable  skill  of  our  driver,  and  the  strength  of  our 
carriage  and  endurance  of  our  horses,  saved  us.  Another  source  of  peril  beset  us.  As 
we  passed  the  poor  demented,  exhausted  wretches  who  could  not  climb  into  the  high,  close 
baggage-wagons,  they  made  frantic  efforts  to  get  on  to  and  into  our  carriage.  They 
grasped  it  everywhere,  and  got  on  to  it,  into  it,  over  it,  and  implored  us  everyway  to 
take  them  on.  We  had  to  be  rough  with  them.  At  first  they  loaded  us  down  to  almost 
a  stand-still,  and  we  had  to  push  them  off  and  throw  them  out.  Finally,  Brown  and  I, 
with  a  pistol  each,  kept  them  out,  although  one  poor  devil  got  in  in  spite  of  us,  and  wo 
lugged  the  infernal  coward  two  miles.  I  finally  opened  the  door  and  he  was  tumbled  out." 

Mr.  Cox.  Now  hear  what  these  brave  Congressmen  actually  did  to 
stay  the  tide  of  retreat : 

"  The  other  side  of  Centreville  we  had  overtaken  Senators  WADE  and  CHANDLER,  or 
saw  them  in  the  crowd,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  of  the  Senate,  and  a  Mr.  Eaton,  of  Detroit, 
with  whom  we  were  in  company  much  of  the  way  afterwards. 

'•  WADE  planted  himself  with  a  cocked  '  Maynard '  in  the  attitude  of  battle  [laughter] ; 
CHANDLER  with  a  revolver,  near  him ;  and  we  planted  ourselves — except  MORRIS — by 
them ;  and  all  with  loud  voices  commanded  one  and  all  to  halt,  or  have  their  brains 
blown  out.  Our  action  instantly  checked  them.  Many  on  horseback  undertook  to  dash 
by,  and  we  seized  the  bridle-reins  of  their  horses  and  compelled  them  to  stop. 

"  Seven  men  staying  a  crowd  maddened  and  desperate  with  fear ;  WADE,  firm  and 
bold  as  an  old  lion ;  CHANDLER  frantically  excited,  and  the  rest  of  our  band  struggling, 
commanding,  entreating,  and  threatening.  As  FOR  ME,  I  ACTED  JUST  AS  YOU  KNOW  I  WOULD 
WHEN  THOROUGHLY  ROUSED — [laughter] — caring  for  nothing  and  nobody,  and  determined, 
as  we  all  were,  that  the  men  should  stop  there." 

Mr.  GURLEY.     I  wish  to  ask  my  colleague — 

The  CHAIRMAN.     Does  the  gentleman  yield  the  floor  to  his  colleague  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  mean  to  convey  the  impression  that  my  colleague 
wrote  it.  It  is  a  scrap  of  history,  written  by  a  Republican  Congressman. 

Mr.  GURLEY.     I  desire  to  say  I  am  not  the  author  of  it. 

Mr.  Cox.  But  to  the  account  given  in  this  letter.  It  is  this  Senator 
WADE,  "  firm  and  bold,"  whom  my  colleague  eulogized  as  so  "brave," 
and  who  was  heralded  in  the  New  York  "  Tribune"  as  likely  to  succeed  the 
sick  and  dying  McClellan  a  few  weeks  since — who  was  urged  by  certain 
parties  for  the  post  now  held  by  Mr.  Stanton,  and  whose  reelection  to  the 
Senate  is  so  much  desired  now  by  a  faction  at  home,  and  who  is  lugged 
into  this  debate  to  be  glorified  here  that  he  may  shine  at  home.  It  is  this 
Senator  WADE,  with  the  aid  of  CHANDLER,  who  "  cocked  his  Maynard 
in  the  attitude  of  battle"  [laughter],  and  helped,  with  the  "  calls  of  or 
der"  from  the  other  Congressmen,  to  stay  the  maddened  crowd  of  fugi 
tives.  The  people  who  have  been  under  the  impression  that  th*e  crowd 
never  stopped  till  they  got  into  Washington,  will  now  be  gratified  to  learn 
that  the  Congressmen  won  the  Bull  Run  battle  against  our  own  soldiers. 
[Laughter.]  I  refer  to  this  precious  bit  of  history  only  to  show  how 
Congressmen  fit  themselves  for  military  criticism. 

My  colleague,  yesterday,  said  he  was  at  Bull  Run,  and  made  as  good 
a  retreat  as  Sigel.  He  was  asked  then  about  the  battle  of  Fredericktown, 
in  which  he  said  he  was  present. 

Mr.  GURLEY.     I  did  not  say  I  was  present  at  that  battle. 

Mr.  Cox.  Very  well.  He  showed  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  KELLOGG],  whose  brave  brother-in-law  fought  that  fight,  that 
he  knew  nothing  about  it.  My  colleague  said  he  preferred  not  to  go  into 
"  details."  I  wanted  the  .details,  sir.  I  needed  them  to  estimate  the 


CIVIL   WAR.  223 

military  experience  of  my  colleague.  If  his  part  has  been  as  inglorious 
there  as  it  was  at  Bull  Run,  I  submit  that  I  must  be  careful  how  I  take 
his  conclusions  about  McClellan. 

There  will  be,  Mr.  Chairman,  empyrics  in  medicine,  pretenders  in  re 
ligion,  pettifoggers  in  law,  mushrooms  in  vegetation,  secessionists  in  Gov 
ernment,  and  snobs  in  society  ;  and  we  must  not  be  surprised  at  military 
wiseacres  in  Congress  !  [Laughter.]  Since  my  colleague  has  hurled  the 
glove  at  McClellan,  I  have  a  right  to  examine  his  claims  as  a  critic.  He 
admits  being  at  Bull  Run.  His  masterly  activity  on  the  retreat  he  ad 
mits.  How  that  retreat  was  effected  I  only  know  from  rumor.  I  have 
seen  it  reported — and  perhaps  it  is  as  apocryphal  as  some  of  the  facts  upon 
which  my  colleague  arraigns  General  McClellan — that  my  colleague,  after 
his  fatiguing  race  to  Centreville,  and  having  passed  that  point  with  the 
speed  of  Gilpin — and  not  having  the  benefit  of  a  carriage  like  the  Congress 
man  who  kicked  out  of  it  the  tired  soldiers  besmutched  with  their  cart 
ridges  in  battle — was  careering  along  like  the  devil  [laughter]  in  Milton, 
where  he  is  described  as  flying 

"  O'er  bog,  or  steep,  through  strait,  rough,  dense,  or  rare, 
With  head,  hands,  wings,  or  feet  pursues  his  way, 
And  swims,  or  sinks,  or  wades,  or  creeps,  or  flies" — 

until  luckily  he  met — what  think  you,  noble  Representatives  ? — a  herd  of 
stampeded  cattle,  who  were  from  my  own  beloved  district — Texas  cattle, 
sir,  wintered  in  the  Scioto  valleys  and  selected  by  their  drover  for  their 
stampeding  propensity  [laughter],  when,  seizing  upon  the  extreme  rear 
of  a  noble  bull,  he  was  borne  from  the  field,  holding  on  with  vigorous  pre 
hension  to  the  tail  of  the  animal !  [Great  laughter.]  This  was  Bull  Run 
indeed ! 

Mr.  GURLEY.  That  is  a  poetical  sketch  of  my  colleague.  It  is  a  thing 
that  never  took  place. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  am  glad  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  EDGERTON.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  It  is  out  of  order  for 
members  of  the  House  to  applaud,  cheer,  or  laugh  in  the  manner  they  have 
been  doing  (laughter),  and  I  submit — 

Mr.  Cox.  Does  the  gentleman  make  that  point  on  me  ?  I  have  not 
applauded,  cheered,  nor  laughed. 

Mr.  EDGERTON.  I  submit  that  order  should  be  preserved  on  the  floor 
of  the  House. 

The' CHAIRMAN.     The  point  of  order  is  well  taken. 

Mr.  EDGERTON.     I  hope  the  Chair  will  enforce  the  rules. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Chair  is  satisfied  that  when  gentlemen  consider 
the  impropriety  of  any  disturbance,  it  will  not  occur  again. 

Mr.  WYCKLIFFE.  I  acknowledge  a  violation  of  order.  I  laughed ; 
but  for  my  life's  sake  I  could  not  help  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  do  justice  to  my  colleague  [Mr.  GURLEY.]  I  put 
this  as  an  apocryphal  case,  which  I  heard  as  a  rumor.  I  am  glad  to  do 
justice  to  him,  and  to  that  noble  animal,  my  constituent,  and  to  whom 
the  gentleman  should  have  apologized,  if  the  story  were  true.  I  was 
about  to  commend  this  strategy  of  my  colleague,  for  its  quick  sense  of 
the  commissary  advantages.  I  deprecate  his  drawing  on  that  or  any  ex 
perience  at  Bull  Run  to  read  the  gifted  McClellan  and  this  Congress  a 


224  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

homily  on  military  affairs.  The  ancient  warriors  rode  in  their  scythed 
chariots ;  the  warriors  on  the  South  American  pampas  dash  off  with 
their  lasso  on  horseback ;  the  ancient  Germans  went  into  battle  as  our 
Indians  do,  with  terrific  yells  and  in  painted  horror ;  the  courtly  knight 
dashed  into  the  tourney  with  iron-clad  armor  and  vizor  down.  Various 
as  human  ingenuity  are  the  modes  of  human  warfare,  both  on  the  advance 
and  in  retreat ;  but  never,  sir,  in  the  accounts  of  Xenophon  or  Marshal 
Saxe ;  from  the  time  of  Joshua  to  General  Taylor  ;  in  the  contests  of 
Achilles  or  Garibaldi,  have  we  so  unique  a  performance  as  this  supposi 
titious  race  of  my  constituent  and  my  colleague  from  the  fields  of  Bull 
Run.  [Laughter.]  Does  he  claim  that  this,  if  true,  would  make  him  a 
military  expert? 

But  my  colleague  was  undaunted.  As  soon  as  Bull  Run  was  over, 
and  Congress  adjourned,  the  telegraph  thrilled  both  in  wire  and  pole  to 
bear  the  tidings  West,  that  "  Colonel  GURLEY,  of  Ohio,"  was  about  to 
assume  the  post  of  aid  to  General  Fremont.  Fremont  was  then  in  the 
ascendant.  Before  him  lay  what  seemed  to  be  the  enchanted  chambers  of 
power.  He  had  the  magic  lamp,  which  made  gold  as  common  as  the  peb 
bles,  and  my  colleague  hastened  to  his  side.  Some  men  smiled.  They 
thought  it  strange  that  a  minister  should  forget  the  beatitudes  of  the  Ser 
mon  on  the  Mount  for  the  disquietudes  of  a  Missouri  camp.  [Laughter.] 
They  thought  that  the  affluent  experience  of  Bull  Run  was  not  of  that  kind 
to  excite  confidence  that  my  colleague  would  shine  in  the  new  field  of  Mars 
to  which  his  patriotism  hurried  him.  But  I,  sir,  knew  my  colleague  bet 
ter.  I  admired  his  patriotism.  I  thought  of  Peter  the  Hermit.  [Laugh 
ter.]  I  saw  in  his  hand  the  crozier  and  the  sword,  and  Bull  Run  did  not 
obscure  the  sign  in  the  sky — in  hoc  signo  vinces  !  I  had  read  in  Ivanhoe 
of  the  priestly  Knight  of  Malta ;  and  I  knew  that  this  new  "  son  of 
Malta  "  [laughter]  would  carve  out  such  a  reputation  that  the  muse  of 
history  would  proudly  stoop  from  her  Parnassian  seat  to  say  :  "  Let  it  be 
so  recorded."  [Laughter.]  But,  sir,  disappointment  followed  close  on 
expectation.  A  week — perhaps  two,  or  three — and  Fremont  lost  his 
magic  lamp.  He  waned  under  the  consuming  lens  of  "  BLAIR'S  rheto 
ric."  [Laughter.]  His  ill-starred  fate  was  perceived  by  my  colleague. 
At  this  critical  juncture  the  only  parallel  I  can  find  for  my  colleague  is 
the  description  which  is  given  of  Job's  war  horse :  u  Canst  thou  make 
him  afraid  as  a  grasshopper?  The  glory  of  his  nostrils  is  terrible.  He 
paweth  in  the  valley,  and  rejoiceth  in  his  strength.  He  swalloweth  the 
ground  with  fierceness  and  rage  ;  neither  believeth  he  that  it  is  the  sound 
of  the  trumpet.  He  saith  among  the  trumpets,  ha  !  ha  !  and  he  smelleth 
the  battle  afar  off"  [Great  laughter.]  The  parallel  fails  only  in  one 
regard.  While  the  war  horse  of  Job  was  advancing,  that  of  my  colleague 
was  retreating.  Leaving  his  campaign  in  Missouri  unfinished,  he  flew 
from  Fremont  to  Ohio,  with  the  "  certainty,  celerity,  and  security  "  of  a 
star  bid  in  the  Post  Office  Department.  [Laughter.] 

What  he  learned  in  his  bloodless  campaign  in  Missouri ;  how  much  he 
perceived  of  the  value  of  the  fortifications  around  St.  Louis — in  cash,  I 
mean;  what  estimate  he  made  of  the  strength  of  the  Fremont  horse ; 
what  martial  achievements  he  witnessed  in  the  antechamber  of  the  short 
lived  western  General,  he  did  not,  and  we  cannot,  tell.  One  thing  he 


CIVIL   WAE.  225 

corrects  to-day,  and  we  must  deduct  that  from  his  military  life,  that  he 
was  not  at  the  battle  of  Fredericktown,  though  I  understood  him  yester 
day  to  say  he  was  there.  But  has  my  colleague  any  actual  experience? 
Has  he  ever  killed  any  one  ?  Did  he  ever  see  a  man  killed  in  battle  ? 
Did  he  ever  speak  to  a  man  who  saw  a  man  killed  in  battle?  Did  he 
ever  hear  the  whiz  of  deadly  lead  ?  Was  hj|  heart  brave  and  his  face 
uublanched  ?  My  colleague  quoted  that  Fredericktown  fight  to  show  that 
u  battle  could  be  fought  and  won  without  McClellan's  orders,  and  in  epite 
of  orders.  That  was  his  point,  if  any.  Now,  I  happen  to  know  that 
there  was  nothing  in  General  McClellan's  orders  to  forbid  that  movement 
on  Fredericktown.  As  I  understood  the  case,  it  was  fought  by  Colonel 
Ross,  who  was  sent  by  General  Grant  to  follow  after  Jeff  Thompson. 
He  overtook  him  unexpectedly,  and  fought  well.  General  Grant  ap 
proved  and  complimented  his  action. 

I  wish  that  my  colleague  would  cultivate  some  faith  in  General 
McClellan.  He  is  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  a  Universalist  minister,  and 
is  full  of  faith  in  the  salvation  of  all  men.  I  glory  in  according  to  him 
the  fullest  "  soul  liberty  "  in  religion.  His  creed  includes  the  salvation  of 
all — embracing  in  its  comprehensive  faith  Jeff  Davis,  Jeff  Thompson, 
"Wigfall,  and  all  that  crowd  of  conspicuous  sinners.  [Laughter.]  He 
believes  that  Zollicoffer  is  now  in  glory  ;  he  can  even  see  Humphrey  Mar 
shall  entering,  as  my  colleague  from  Cleveland  once  said  of  John  Brown, 
"the  pearly  gates  of  Paradise" — and  that  too  without  the  enlargement, 
of  the  gates  of  Paradise  or  the  lessening  of  the  bulk  of  Marshall.  He  can, 
with  his  eye  of  faith,  and  in  his  universal  benevolence,  see  the  Falstaffian 
Kentuckian,  this  mountain  of  secession  mummy,  squeeze  through  the 
celestial  doors  [laughter],  and  larding  the  golden  pavements  of  the  New 
Jerusalem  [laughter]  ;  but  he  cannot  exercise  a  little  faith,  just  the  size 
of  a  mustard  seed,  in  the  prescience,  skill,  and  sagacity  of  our  accom 
plished  young  general. 

Oh  !  if  there  is  one  thing  more  beautiful  than  another,  it  is  that  trust 
which  we  repose  in  Another  in  the  dark  hours  of  trial  and  death.  It  is  said 
that  reason  was  the  first  born,  but  faith  inherits  the  blessing.  Reason  is  apt 
to  be  fallible,  short-sighted,  eager,  impetuous,  and  impatient  of  contradic 
tion  ;  while  faith  is  gentle  and  docile,  ever  ready  to  listen  to  the  voice 
by  which  alone  truth  and  wisdom  can  effectually  reach  her.  God  has 
created  two  lights — the  greater  light  to  rule  the  busy  day — reason ;  the 
lesser  to  rule  the  contemplative  night — faith  ;  but  faith  shines  only  so  long 
as  she  reflects  something  of  the  illumination  of  the  brighter  orb.  Where 
a  man  has  no  faith  he  has  no  light  of  reason.  There  are  some  things  in 
which  a  man  must  exercise  his  trust.  The  American  people,  unlike  my 
colleague,  have  read  the  history  of  General  McClellan.  They  know  his 
military  studies,  his  travel  and  observation,  his  practical  railroad  life,  his 
mode  of  dealing  with  men  and  bodies  of  men,  his  prudential  reserve,  his 
unfailing  patience,  patriotism,  and  confidence  in  his  own  resources.  They 
know  that  the  enemy  would  have  been  glad  to  have  had  him  at  the  head 
of  their  forces.  They  know  that  he  has  never  blundered  ;  that  he  is  safe, 
if  not  brilliant ;  that  his  power  to  surprise  and  combine  are  rare  qualities 
of  his  military  genius ;  that  his  knowledge  of  topography,  engineering, 
and  field  strategy,  his  method  and  industry,  and  his  quick  apprehension 
15 


EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

of  military  strength  and  weakness,  eminently  fit  him  for  this  high  com 
mand.  Knowing  this  and  reasoning  upon  this,  now  that  the  night  is  upon 
us,  they  will  keep  their  faith  in  him,  and  no  hostile  criticism  of  the  gen 
tleman  here  can  shake  that  faith.  The  attack  of  my  colleague  is  like 
that  of  a  "  pigmy  with  a  straw  against  a  giant  cased  in  adamant." 

My  colleague  is  not  satisfied  with  any  thing  short  of  an  advance  at  every 
hazard.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  the  President,  for  the  latter  defers  to 
McClellan ;  not  satisfied  with  any  commander-in-chief,  for  no  one  can 
command  even  three  hundred  thousand  men  ;  not  satisfied  with  what  has 
been  done  ;  not  satisfied  with  what  is  to  be  done.  He  would  discourage 
all  our  efforts,  and  make  taxation  weigh  like  a  useless  burden  on  an 
anxious  and  saddened  people.  His  policy  would  disorganize  the  army, 
and  realize  his  theology  by  making  a  hell  on  earth  [laughter]  without 
giving  us  the  satisfaction  of  a  future  state,  where  secession  may  have  its 
fit  eternal  doom.  [Laughter.] 

So  much  for  the  critic.  Now  what  is  the  criticism  ?  First,  he  carries 
us  to  Missouri,  and  says  that  General  Curtis  was  sent  with  some  ten 
thousand  men  against  Price,  when  there  was  almost  a  certainty  of  Price's 
capture,  when  all  at  once  an  order  came  from  a  general  officer,  either 
there  or  here,  which  called  a  halt,  and  nothing  was  done.  Now,  my  col 
league  meant  that  either  General  McClellan  or  General  Halleck,  by  his 
hesitation  and  delay,  has  allowed  the  campaign  against  Price  to  be  sus 
pended,  if  not  abandoned.  I  do  not  care  which  general  he  meant ;  it  is 
simply  not  true  that  either  of  them  has  been  thus  derelict.  The  facts  are 
these :  Generals  Curtis,  Sigel,  and  Asboth  had  been  ordered  toward 
Springfield  to  attack  Price,  if  it  was  thought  best  in  their  judgment. 
They  sent  forward  a  large  cavalry  reconnoissance,  and  found  that  inde 
fatigable  and  able  General  Price  in  such  force  that  they  concluded  to 
hold  a  council  of  war,  and  decided  that  six  additional  regiments  were 
needed.  On  notifying  General  Halleck,  he  at  once  ordered  them  from 
General  Pope's  command  near  Sedalia,  to  move  on  to  the  scene  of  opera 
tions.  General  Halleck's  opinion,  in  a  letter  received  by  General  McClel 
lan  only  two  days  ago,  was  that  they  would  either  beat  Price  or  drive  him 
out  of  Missouri.  Perhaps  my  colleague  never  got  as  far  as  Springfield, 
and  he  does  not  know  the  strategy  of  Price.  Price  has  ventured  to  appear 
in  force  in  southwestern  Missouri ;  but  he  takes  care  to  be  within  con 
venient  reach  of  the  Boston  Mountains,  where  he  can  hide  in  that  almost 
inaccessible  locality,  and  where  it  is  easier  for  him  to  go  than  our  generals 
to  follow.  But  it  is  utterly  unjust  to  General  McClellan  to  say  that  he 
has  restrained  the  eager  impetuosity  of  the  Missouri  soldiers.  General 
Halleck  has  received  no  orders  inconsistent  with  the  most  prompt  move 
ment  in  Missouri.  When  General  Halleck  took  command  of  the  army  in 
Missouri,  he  found  mountains  of  difficulty  to  overcome — as  Buell  did  in 
Kentucky,  as  McClellan  did  here — in  the  organization  and  equipment  of 
the  troops.  General  Halleck  found,  it  is  true,  a  fine  paper  organization. 
He  has  labored  with  a  statesman's  foresight,  a  publicist's  learning,  and  a 
soldier's  skill  to  bring  order  out  of  chaos.  He  found  troops  without  con 
centration,  and  required  arms,  transportation,  and  supplies,  which  General 
McClellan  had  strained  every  nerve  to  afford.  There  has  been  no  delay 
by  any  orders  of  General  McClellan.  His  orders  to  Halleck,  as  to  Buell, 


CIVIL   WAR.  227 

have  been  to  hurry  his  movements  as  fast  as  it  was  safe  and  possible.  I 
state  these  as  the  positive  facts  of  the  case ;  and  if  gentlemen  want  the 
facts,  let  them  go  to  the  headquarters  and  they  can  have  them. 

Again,  my  colleague  makes  the  specific  charge  that  he  is  informed, 
on  authority  which  he  is  not  permitted  to  question — nor  I  suppose  to 
quote — that  some  ten  or  fifteen  thousand  Confederate  troops,  near  Ronmey, 
were  in  the  power  of  our  army  of  forty  thousand,  and  that  the  capture 
so  easy  was  not  made,  because  an  order  came  from  headquarters  here  not 
to  advance.  This  is  a  charge  as  sweeping  as  it  is  irresponsible  and 
groundless.  I  do  not  care  who  is  his  authority,  I  question  it  here,  and 
now.  My  colleague  reads  certain  telegraphs  which  have  strangely  come 
into  his  possession,  to  show  that  Lander  and  Kelley  despatched  that  they 
could  take  the  rebels,  and  all  that  was  wanted  was  an  order  ;  and  presto  ! 
they  are  taken  !  We  have  had  a  good  many  such  successes  in  anticipa 
tion.  I  believe  we  had  one  at  Piketon.  It  is  said  that  General  Lander 
telegraphed  and  General  Kelley  sent  a  messenger  to  apprise  each  other 
of  the  absolute  certainty  of  success.  General  Lander  I  admire  for  his 
caution  and  intrepidity ;  but  I  will  state  the  facts  to  which  I  suppose  my 
colleague  refers.  I  state  them  correctly.  General  Lander  went  to  re 
lieve  General  Kelley  at  Romney,  Kelley  being  sick.  He  reached  Han 
cock  on  the  5th  of  January.  He  found  the  enemy  under  General  Jack 
son,  on  the  other  side  of  the  river,  in  considerable  strength — say  fifteen 
or  sixteen  thousand.  The  enemy  had  driven  a  few  of  our  troops  across 
the  river.  When  General  Lander  reached  his  post,  the  enemy  were  shell 
ing,  or  about  to  shell,  Hancock.  General  Jackson  summoned  General 
Lander  to  surrender.  Lander  declined.  Jackson  shelled  away  at  Han 
cock  without  effect.  Lander  sent  for  reinforcements.  General  McClellan 
sent  one  of  Banks'  brigades  by  forced  marches  at  once.  While  there, 
General  Lander  sent  two  or  three  long  despatches,  suggesting  various 
movements  to  cut  off  Jackson.  General  Jackson  had  a  shorter  distance 
to  return  to  Winchester  than  General  Banks  had  to  march  to  cut  off  Jack' 
son's  retreat,  besides  the  river,  which  it  would  take  forty-eight  hours  to 
cross,  as  they  had  no  ready  means  of  crossing.  General  McClellan  re 
fused  to  trust  a  command  to  cross  the  river  under  those  circumstances, 
with  no  chances  of  retreat  provided.  General  Lander  then  sent  another 
despatch  to^General  Banks,  criticizing  the  President,  General  Banks,  and 
others ;  to  which  General  McClellan  replied  that  General  Lander  was 
"  too  suggestive  and  critical."  I  think  here  is  the  rub ;  McClellan  had 
seen  enough  of  the  Ball's  Bluff  business — that  affair  to  which  I  refer 
only  to  say  that  no  one  attaches  the  responsibility  to  General  McClel 
lan  for  that  terrible  disaster.  He  knew  what  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  depicted  so  graphically,  that  to  cross  a  river  like  the  Potomac,  in 
the  face  of  an  enemy,  and  with  no  means  of  retreat,  was  almost  insanity. 
He  did  what  a  prudent  general,  having  his  own  plans  matured,  ought  to 
have  done ;  and  here  I  distinctly  say  that  General  Banks  wrote  a  letter, 
in  which,  from  his  standpoint,  he  entirely  commended  the  action  of  Gen 
eral  McClellan.  And  now,  and  here,  we  have  our  general  arraigned  by 
my  colleague  on  facts  not  authentic ;  and  when,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  my 
colleague's  military  experience  does  not  reach  so  far  as  to  tell,  by  practice, 
the  rear  rank  from  the  front,  or  the  breach  from  the  muzzle  of  a  musket ! 


228  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

I  have  replied  to  these  complaints  in  detail.  Now  for  these  general 
complaints  of  no  movement,  so  glibly  rehearsed  by  the  gentleman.  It  is 
complained  that  General  McClellan  has  not  moved,  that  nothing  has  been 
done,  and  that  nothing  is  about  to  be  done  ;  that  he  does  not  let  curious 
people  know  what  he  is  about.  If  he  is  doing  nothing,  as  they  allege,  he 
has  nothing  to  divulge  to  these  curious  gentlemen.  If  he  is  doing  some 
thing,  the  very  way  to  undo  it  is  to  let  them  know  it,  for  they  are  as  leaky 
as  the  present  weather,  or  Oregon,  where  it  is  said  to  rain  fifty-two  weeks 
in  the  year.  But  has  he  done  any  thing  ?  I  say  that  he  has  done  all  that  he 
could  safely.  McClellan  has  not  merely  perfected  the  defences  of  Wash 
ington  and  the  Potomac  ;  but,  considering  the  fact  that  the  force  and  spirit 
of  the  South  are  concentrated  here  on  the  Potomac,  and  near  our  capital, 
and  considering  the  untoward  season,  weather,  and  roads,  is  it  nothing 
that  he  has,  as  a  Richmond  paper  asserts,  held  Beauregard  and  his  army 
as  in  a  vice  ;  and  that,  too,  when  the  enemy  have  all  the  advantage  of  an 
equal  army,  a  railroad  for  concentration  in  the  rear,  and  a  power  of  com 
bination,  impossible  for  our  general?  But  he  has  delayed  too  long  here  ; 
and  he  is  taken  to  task  now  because  he  does  not  move  his  army  to  cer 
tain  destruction,  by  assaulting  an  enemy  equal  in  number  to  his  own,  and 
that,  too,  in  their  intrenchments.  My  answer  to  this  querulous  question 
ing  is,  first,  that  my  colleague  himself  gives  a  reason  why  no  movement 
could  have  been  made  the  past  three  weeks,  because  he  says  that  the  ar 
tillery  would  go  under  the  mud.  Very  well ;  does  he  want  that  done  ? 
Had  the  roads  been  on  the  21st  of  July  last  as  they  are  now,  my  colleague 
would  not  have  been  able  to  have  escaped  the  companionship  of  mv  friend 
from  New  York.  Second,  when  General  McClellan  took  command  here 
— I  say  it  without  any  desire  to  reflect  on  General  Scott — he  found  things 
disorganized,  and  no  combinations  between  different  parts  of  this  grand 
army.  He  had  to  construct  intrenchments,  and  make  the  army  effective 
in  many  details.  This  he  has  done.  Indefatigable  even  unto  sickness, 
he  has  accomplished  what  my  colleague's  "  brave  WADE  "  could  never 
have  done,  had  he  studied  tactics  and  war  for  a  century.  And  third,  he 
never  contemplated  a  movement  on  the  enemy's  intrenchments.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say  here  that  he  intended  first  to  have  General  Buell  get  the 
Tennessee  Railroad  ;  that  for  this  end  he  has  given  all  his  energies  to  aid 
him  and  hasten  him  in  this  purpose.  All  that  Buell  asked  for — arms, 
transportation,  troops — have  been  furnished.  When  General  Buell  took 
command,  he  found  his  troops  straggling  and  scattered.  He  had  to  gather 
them,  and  concentrate  and  form  them  in  divisions.  He  has  had  bad 
roads  and  bad  weather ;  but  I  know  the  fact,  when  I  declare  to  this 
Congress  and  the  people,  that  no  delay  of  General  Buell's  movements  is 
attributable  to  any  orders  from  McClellan.  On  the  contrary,  he  has  or 
dered  him  to  hasten  with  all  despatch ;  not  to  lose  a  day  or  an  hour  in 
the  accomplishment  of  the  design  to  seize  the  Tennessee  Railroad,  to  the 
end  that  not  only  shall  Eastern  Tennessee  be  opened  to  the  army  of  the 
Union ;  not  only  to  give  relief  to  the  Union  men  of  Tennessee,  about 
whom  my  colleague  makes  so  injudicious  a  jeremiade  ;  but  to  the  grand 
aim,  to  cut  off  this  rebel  army  of  the  Potomac,  not  alone  from  the  line 
of  their  supplies,  but  from  their  line  of  retreat ! 

In  Kentucky  we  have  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  soldiers,  ready, 


CIVIL   WAE.  229 

eager,  active,  and  triumphant  whenever  they  have  had  any  chance  in  a 
battle.  McClellan's  orders  are  for  the  speediest  movement  there  possible. 
My  colleague  praises  the  recent  victory  of  our  troops  at  Mill  Spring. 
I  share  with  him,  as  my  constituents  did  with  his,  the  pride  of  that  hard- 
fought  encounter  ;  but  I  will  not  shame  my  State,  which  called  McClellan 
to  her  service,  by  plucking  the  laurels  from  his  brow,  when  there  is  not  a 
soldier  in  that  battle  who  will  not  rejoice  to  see  him  wear  them,  as  well 
for  his  conduct  in  Western  Virginia,  as  for  the  strategy  by  which  even 
the  Mill  Spring  battle  was  directed,  though  at  a  distance.  It  was,  as  I 
said,  a  part  of  his  design  upon  the  Tennessee  Railroad ;  and  there  is  no 
impediment,  but  every  encouragement  from  him,  for  General  Buell  to 
forward  the  movement  to  that  desired  end.  In  Eastern  Kentucky,  Hum 
phrey  Marshall  has  proved  that  while  his  spirit  was  willing,  his  flesh  was 
weak  [laughter],  before  the  Ohio  soldiers  under  Garfield.  Zollicoffer 
has  been  killed  and  his  forces  routed ;  and  nothing  but  the  impediments 
of  nature  prevents  our  soldiers  from  lifting  our  ensign  upon  the  mountains 
of  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  and  Alabama.  In  fear  for  the  fate  of 
Memphis,  Beauregard  is  hurried  out  to  Columbus,  Kentucky,  to  avert 
the  northern  avalanche  which  impends  there  ;  while  Buell,  with  consum 
mate  skill,  is  drawing  his  fatal  lines  around  the  Confederates,  as  the  lines 
have  been  drawn  in  Virginia. 

But  it  is  said  the  Potomac  is  blockaded.  So  it  is  ;  but  it  is  of  no 
practical  disadvantage.  For  all  the  purposes  of  supply,  we  are  in  com 
munication  with  every  part  of  the  north.  There  are  compensations,  per 
haps  unknown  to  my  colleague,  for  this  seeming  disadvantage.  Would 
that  he  would  exercise  his  faith  in  some  things  inscrutable  to  him.  But 
is  there  no  credit  to  be  given  for  the  retention  of  Maryland ;  the  rescue 
of  the  Virginia  eastern  shore  ;  the  constant  preparation  and  discipline  of 
an  army  of  one  hundred  thousand  men  here  ?  And  all  this  with  the  late 
Secretary  of  War  dabbling  in  slavery  questions  and  trafficking  in  contracts. 
Western  Virginia  we  have  held  against  the  hostility  of  the  disloyal.  Floyd 
has  been  compelled  to  decamp  ;  and  from  the  mountains  to  the  Ohio  our 
right  there  is  none  to  dispute. 

But,  sir,  although  General  McClellan  has  had  charge  of  all  these  mat 
ters,  and  is  entitled  to  share  their  merit,  it  was  not  my  purpose  to  paint  a  pic 
ture  of  our  successes.  We  have  gained  as  yet  no  great  bloody  battle  com 
mensurate  with  the  armies  in  the  field.  Indeed,  sir,  I  would  prefer  that  the 
war  should  be  carried  on  and  ended  by  bloodless  tactics  rather  than  by 
bloody  carnage,  if  it  were  possible.  I  would  leave  as  little  hate  as  possi 
ble  as  the  legacy  of  this  conflict.  If  it  were  possible  to  close  this  war  by 
the  melting  away  or  capitulation  of  the  Confederate  army,  the  country 
would  prefer  it ;  General  McClellan  is  not  making  this  a  war  of  ven 
geance,  but  a  war  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union.  To  this  end  he  has, 
by  his  comprehensive  energy,  seized  the  coast  from  Ship  Island  to  Fort 
ress  Monroe.  There  is  no  example  in  history  of  a  sea  coast  so  extensive, 
and  a  country  of  such  area,  surrounded  and  closed  in  by  such  a  superior 
force,  as  is  the  rebellious  part  of  our  land.  As  the  curtain  lifts  and  this 
procession  of  facts  transpire,  we  shall  see  the  Union  element  of  the  South 
dilating  and  emerging  from  its  despondency.  We  shall  see  the  loyal  men 
coming  forth  and  gladly  seizing  the  musket  to  rally  to  the  old  flag. 


EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

The  great  mistake  on  the  part  of  these  military  fledglings,  who  criticize 
the  conduct  of  the  war,  is,  that  they  habitually  underrate  the  extent  and 
strength  of  the  rebellion,  just  as  they  underrated  and  contemned  the  al 
leged  or  fancied  grievances  of  the  South  and  their  hold  on  the  southern 
mind.  I  venture  to  say  that  this  is  the  capital  delinquency  of  the  admin 
istration,  if  they  have  been  delinquent.  Had  they  realized  the  fact  "  that 
a  considerable  body  of  insurgents  had  risen  against  the  sovereign,"  which 
Vattel  alleges  is  the  test  of  a  civil  war,  with  all  its  appurtenances  of  a  hu 
mane  code  of  warfare,  the  exchange  of  prisoners,  &c.,  we  might  have  had 
less  difficulty  and  more  honor  in  the  conduct  of  this  immense  ordeal  by 
battle.  Those  who  do  not  recognize  the  fact  of  the  immensity  of  this  re 
bellion  will  find  at  every  step  difficulties  about  belligerent  rights  on  sea 
and  land,  and  inhumanities  which  would  sicken  the  heart  of  a  savage. 
We  must  learn  by  experience,  if  not  a  priori.  Even  my  colleague,  with 
his  Bull  Run  retreat,  is  yet  in  his  nonage.  He  must  resort  to  the  Baco 
nian  system  of  induction,  and  by  experience  learn,  and  begin  to  learn 
by  being  a  "  child  in  arms."  [Laughter.]  In  surveying  this  grand  field 
of  action,  from  this  capital  to  Santa  Fe,  he  makes  the  mistake  which  the 
savant  made  when  he  supposed  the  moon  annihilated,  because  an  animal 
cule  had  crept  over  the  disc  of  his  telescope  and  obscured  the  view.  Let 
him  take  another  glass  and  clear  his  vision. 

This  presumptuous  dictation  to  our  generals  is  only  a  small  illustration 
of  what  we  see  here  in  a  larger  measure,  when  gentlemen  undertake  to 
interpret  the  inscrutable  designs  of  Providence  to  sustain  their  finite  views. 

These  political  "  cuckoos,  who  breed  in  the  nest  of  another  trade," 
these  civilians,  who  go  on  chirping  about  war  as  if  they  were  trained  to  it, 
when,  in  truth,  they  are  only  trained  in  the  political  convention  and  the 
talk  of  Congressional  Globes,  cannot  apprehend  that  this  revolution,  which 
is  the  work  of  years  and  the  movement  of  millions,  is  any  thing  more  than 
a  little  derangement  of  the  political  machine,  which  will  regulate  itself  by 
some  political  compensation,  or  some  act  of  revengeful  confiscation  ;  when, 
in  truth,  it  can  hardly  be  corrected  without  breaking  the  machine,  or  at 
least  retarding  its  motion.  It  is  so  stupendous,  sir,  that  it  can  onry  be 
likened  to  the  ocean,  which  lifts  itself  up  under  a  darkened  sky  and  amid 
rolling  thunder,  and  resists  the  exercise  of  any  thing  short  of  Supreme 
power  with  an  elemental  force  that  defies  all  the  little  expedients  of  carp 
ing  man. 

These  complaints  about  the  war  are  getting  as  common  in  the  press 
and  the  House  as  they  were  before  they  produced  the  Bull  Run  disaster. 
A  few  of  these  impatient  people  then  learned  a  lesson  from  their  incautious 
impulsiveness  ;  but  here  we  have  it  again.  They  belong  to  that  class 
of  skeptics  who  take  every  thing  incomprehensible  to  their  feeble  sight  as 
unknown  and  non-existent.  They  cannot  see  McClellan  doing  any  thing  ; 
therefore  he  does  nothing.  They  are  not  partners  in  his  confidence ; 
therefore  he  does  wrong.  He  has  not  rushed  about  in  wild  theatric  style  ; 
therefore  he  is  unfit.  He  has  no  retinue,  no  laced  and  gilded  supernume 
raries,  no  blare  of  trumpet  and  boom  of  guns  to  announce  himself  here  and 
there.  He  has  no  elan,  no  dash,  no  plumed  nonsense  ;  therefore  the  pub 
lic  faith  in  him  must  be  sapped.  Most  of  all,  he  regards  this  as  a  great 
war  for  the  Union  and  the  Constitution,  for  the  salvation  of  the  white 


CIVIL  WAE.  231 

man's  free  government  of  America  ;  and  because  he  does  not  play  General 
Phelps  in  proclamations,  or  General  Fremont  in  deeds  of  manumission,  he 
is  abused  and  maligned. 

Who  are  those  that  thus  question  McClellan's  ability  ?  Did  they  see 
and  understand  his  masterly  strategy  in  Western  Virginia,  the  fame  of 
which  is  the  pride  of  the  western  soldiery  ?  Do  they  know  the  calm  con 
fidence  and  meritorious  patience  with  which  he  now  pursues  his  schemes 
by  sea  and  land,  by  river  and  road,  grouping  whole  sections  in  his  com 
prehensive  combinations  of  strategy,  and  striving,  without  irritating  and 
inconsequential  skirmishing,  to  end  the  war  by  "  a  sharp,  though  it  may 
be  a  desperate  struggle,"  and  thus  restore  the  Union?  He  has  pledged 
himself  to  the  President  that  if  he  live,  and  be  allowed  to  carry  out  in 
action  what  he  has  matured  in  design,  we  shall  soon  see  our  flag  tri 
umphant  and  the  rebellion  crushed. 

These  ready  military  critics  have  not  even  the  militia  training,  which 
was  so  important  years  ago,  to  make  them  experts.  A  former  colleague 
of  ours,  in  the  days  of  1840,  when  the  campaigns  of  General  Harrison 
were  discussed  by  a  brigadier-general  of  the  Michigan  militia,  with  gro 
tesque  humor  held  up  to  the  ridicule  of  the  American  Congress  the  pecu 
liar  military  studies  by  which  the  member  from  Michigan  was  fitted  to 
the  subtle  criticisms  on  strategy,  and  the  careful  reviews  of  battles.  He 
ventured  to  believe  that  the  same  militia  general  might  have  studied  the 
title  page  of  Baron  Steuben  enough  to  know  that  the  rear  rank  stands 
right  behind  the  front.  [Laughter.]  Besides,  the  critic  on  that  occasion 
had  the  fortune  to  have  been  in  the  toils,  privations,  sacrifices,  and 
bloody  scenes  through  which  a  militia  officer  in  time  of  peace  was  sure 
to  pass.  It  is  long  since  I  read  that  graphic  picture  of  a  muster  day  in 
the  West,  touched  by  the  tints  of  Corwin's  facile  humor.  The  troops  in 
motion !  the  corn-stalks,  umbrellas,  hoe  and  axe  handles,  and  other  like 
deadly  implements  of  war  overshadowing  all  the  field,  when  lo !  the 
leader  of  the  host  approaches  !  Far  off  his  coming  shines.  I  need  not 
describe  his  horse,  the  rising  cloud,  the  rain,  the  retreat,  the  remorseless 
fury  with  which  the  watermelons  are  slaughtered,  and  the  whisky  drank 
in  a  neighboring  grocery.  [Laughter.]  If  with  such  experiences  the 
member  from  Michigan  was  regarded  then  as  the  prince  of  military 
critics,  what  shall  we  say  now  of  my  sainted  colleague,  whose  gentle  life 
has  been  passed  in  the  green  pastures  by  the  still  waters  of  peace,  and 
whose  every  prospect  was  the  millennium,  in  which  the  lion  and  the  lamb 
should  lie  down  together,  and  the  little  child  should  lead  them.  Oh! 
how  it  jars  to  hear  the  voice  so  often  raised  in  benediction  and  prayer, 
and  tuned  to  the  sweet  accents  of  love  and  mercy, 

"  Splitting  with  tremendous  sounds  our  ears  asunder, 
With  gun,  drum,  trumpet,  blunderbuss,  and  thunder."  [Laughter.] 

If  a  militia  general  was  so  well  fitted  for  the  task  of  criticism  on  war, 
a  fortiori,  what  heed  shall  we  not  pay  to  my  reverend  colleague,  whose 
only  experience  has  been  that  of  a  Bull  Run  retreat.  Such  critics  ought 
at  least  to  know  a  spear  from  a  pruning-hook,  or  a  sword  from  a  plough 
share.  They  ought  at  least  to  tell  an  ambulance  from  a  caisson.  They 
ought  to  bite  a  cartridge  without  biting  their  tongue.  The  only  fuse 


EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGBESS. 

they  know  of  is  a  political  fusion ;  they  can  deploy  around  a  convention 
or  caucus,  and  fire  their  political  thunder  from  the  batteries  of  a  dema 
gogue,  masked  with  the  negro.  If  they  fired  a  gun  and  should  hit,  they 
would  do  it  as  did  Winkle  when  he  killed  the  rook — he  shut  his  eyes 
and  blazed  away  in  timid  despair.  My  colleague  is  one  of  those  whose 
politics  and  prayers  have  ever  been  to  be  delivered  from  the  men  of  war. 
In  times  past  he  has  thought  more  of  Saint  Peter  than  of  saltpeter.  When 
the  Mexican  war  was  declared,  the  class  to  which  he  belongs  echoed 
Simmer's  "  True  Grandeur  of  Nations,"  when  he  said  "  there  was  no  war 
which  was  not  dishonorable,  and  no  peace  which  was  not  honorable." 
They  sang  the  ironical  Yankee  slang  of  Hosea  Bigelow  to  the  recruiting 
sergeant  of  Colonel  Caleb  Gushing : 

"Fife  away,  you  fifin'  feller, 
You  may  fife  till  you  are  yeller, 
Tore  you  get  a  hold  of  me." 

There,  away  down  in  some  New  England  village,  "  they  kind  o'  thought 
Christ  went  agin  war  and  pillage,  and  that  eppyletts  warn't  the  best  mark 
of  a  saint."  Now,  they  are  willing  to  swear  "'  that  the  apostles  were  rig 
ged  out  in  their  swallow-tail  coats,  an*  marched  round  in  front  of  a  drum 
and  fife."  Now  they  agree  to  the  ironical  verse  : 

"  John  P. 
Robinson — he 
Says  they  didn't  know  every  thing  down  in  Judee." 

These  men  whose  lives  have  been  dedicated  to  considering  the  horrors 
of  war  and  slavery,  and  whose  consciences  were  very  tender  about  the 
down-trodden  when  they  wanted  votes,  now  undertake,  by  congressional 
committees,  declarations,  and  military  diatribes  here,  to  set  squadrons  in 
the  field,  and  to  show  McClellan  how  he  is  not  doing  it,  or  how  he  might 
do  it  with  the  aid  of  armed  blacks  so  bravely  and  all  at  once.  Not  satis 
fied  with  the  President  of  their  choice  ;  not  content  with  that  which  they 
voted  in  the  Crittenden  resolutions  as  the  object  to  which  the  war  should 
be  devoted ;  not  happy  in  the  progress  of  a  campaign  which,  so  far  as 
General  McClellan  is  concerned,  has  been  comparatively  successful,  and 
certainly  without  blunders,  they  want  a  movement  "  at  all  hazards,"  even 
if  it  moves  the  country  and  the  Government  to  secession,  dictatorship, 
chaos,  or  destruction.  Such  political  dyspeptics  and  martial  zanies  ought 
to  be  sent  home  to  teach  boarding  school  misses  the  doctrines  that  brought 
many  members  here — the  beauty  of  John  Brown's  life,  and  the  glory  of 
his  death. 

Judging  by  the  remarks  made  here,  one  would  infer  that  these  gentle 
men  were  all  ready  to  receive  and  provide  for  the  four  millions  of  blacks 
who  are  to  be  freed  by  the  war  power ;  that  the  corn  bread  and  fat  pork 
were  all  provided  for  the  jubilee  of  freedom.  But  where  will  they  get  the 
food,  or  where  will  they  fix  the  locus  in  quo  for  the  festive  scene?  In 
Kentucky? — Ohio?  Some  of  our  soldiers,  who  have  just  fought  so  nobly 
under  General  Thomas,  have  written  complaints  that  they  get  clothes 
through  which  they  can  put  their  fingers,  and  chicory  for  coffee.  We 
do  not  even  feed  decently  our  white  braves  ;  but  these  gentlemen,  who 
reason  so  lunaticly,  think  that  there  is  some  peculiar  virtue  in  a  colored 


CIVIL   WAK.  233 

child  or  woman,  and  that  the  Lord  somehow  will  provide  for  them  as  he 
did  for  Elijah  with  the  ravens. 

Why,  do  not  these  extreme  gentlemen  know  that  they  are,  in  some 
part,  responsible  for  this  war?  Does  my  colleague  from  Cleveland  [Mr. 
RIDDLE]  want  me  to  prove  it  by  his  own  speech  ?  They  are  only  fight 
ing  what  we  advised  them  would  come  by  their  action.  We  Democrats, 
with  McClellan  at  our  head,  are  now  helping  them  ;  and  how  are  we  met 
by  these  ingrates  ?  No,  they  are  not  fighting  it ;  but  they  think  they  are 
moving  the  wheels,  when  they  only  sit  on  the  axle  and  buzz  their  mur 
murs  about  McClellan  and  the  forces  which  move  the  chariot  of  war. 
What  good  comes  of  this  sort  of  debate  here  and  now?  Talk  about  milk 
ing  a  he-goat  in  a  sieve,  and  it  is  sense  to  this.  There  is  a  little  smack 
of  propriety  in  this  latter  idea  ;  but  what  can  we  say  of  this  exhibition  in 
a  deliberative  body,  whose  only  duty  it  is  to  increase  the  army  and  the  rev 
enue,  discussing  the  disposition  of  the  slaves  before  we  get  them,  and 
the  movements  of  General  McClellan,  with  the  blankest  incapacity  to 
understand  them.  It  is  too  ridiculous  for  serious  controversy.  It  can 
only  be  ridiculed.  Yet  we  have  civil  warriors,  whose  only  fight  is  logo 
machy,  barking  at  General  McClellan  ;  and  for  what  ?  Because  he  does  not 
proclaim  liberty  throughout  all  the  land  and  to  all  the  inhabitants  thereof. 
Ah,  there  is  the  trouble  !  Can  you  wonder  that  Wendell  Phillips,  whose 
speeches  are  hailed  so  rapturously  by  this  class,  declared  that  he  should 
deplore  a  victory  by  McClellan,  because  the  sore  would  be  salved  over, 
and  it  would  only  be  the  victory  of  a  slave  Union  ;  and  that  he  thanked 
Beauregard  for  marshalling  his  army  before  Washington,  because  it  con 
ferred  upon  Congress  the  constitutional  power  to  abolish  slavery  ?  Nor 
would  I  wonder  to  see  my  colleague  from  the  Cleveland  district,  who 
lectured  us  on  our  duty  to  the  Union  upon  the  slavery  question,  rehearsing 
again  his  contempt  for  the  Union,  which  he  expressed  in  his  printed 
speech  made  at  Cleveland  on  the  day  of  John  Brown's  obsequies,  when 
he  said  that  no  purer  spirit  than  John  Brown's  had  ever  entered  Paradise 
for  the  past  thousand  years  ;  and  that  he  would  rend  the  Union  to  destroy 
slavery,  though  hedged  round  by  the  triple  bars  o.f  the  national  compact. 

I  did  intend,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  review  some  of  the  bills  introduced 
here  for  confiscation  and  emancipation,  and  to  discuss  their  feasibility  and 
constitutionality.  But  I  am  glad  to  announce  to  the  country  that  there  is 
no  hope  of  such  suicidal  legislation  passing  the  present  Congress.  That 
announcement,  which  the  opinions  here  justify,  will  give  relief  to  our 
Army  and  to  the  Union  men  everywhere.  One  of  the  bills  of  this  black 
batch  pretends  to  strike  out  the  State  of  Florida.  This  bill  has  the  pa 
ternity  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  GURLEY].  It  is  a  part  of  his  military  plan. 
While  striking  for  the  Union  and  the  flag,  with  every  star  on  its  folds,  he 
would  blot  out  the  Statehood  of  Florida.  He  would  have  its  everglades 
and  swamps  devoted  to  the  business  of  negro  apprenticeship,  with  the 
Federal  agents  as  taskmasters,  and  the  Republic  as  a  cotton  producer  and 
speculator.  Here  is  the  spot  where  my  colleague  would  imparadise  the 
African.  He  would  have  a  Federal  master  watch  the  negro  apprentice, 
and  see  to  it  that  he  produced  a  living  from  that  soil,  where  dying  is  so 
much  easier.  He  would  have  us  drop  down  the  little  pickaninnies  amidst 
the  haunts  of  the  alligator.  He  thinks  he  sees  here  an  opening  for  the 


234:  EIGHT   TEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

rising  generation  of  colored  children ;  knowing,  as  my  colleague  does, 
that  they  will  all  be  saved  in  the  other  world,  he  is  willing  to  risk  their 
sudden  disappearance  here.  I  can  well  imagine  the  holy  horror  which 
will  pervade  the  infantile  African  mind  when  it  comes  to  understand  the 
confiscating  character  of  my  colleague's  bill.  I  can  well  understand  how 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  CAMPBELL]  must  have  startled 
the  people  of  his  State  by  his  proposition  to  hang  all  the  public  plun 
derers,  and  thus  depopulate  so  terribly  his  own  State.  But  that  was 
humanity  compared  to  this  scheme  of  my  colleague,  which  has  only  a 
parallel  in  Dean  Swift's  plan  to  get  rid  of  Irish  children  by  eating  them. 
Suicidal  absurdity  can  no  further  go  than  this  !  All  such  schemes  are  in 
derogation  of  our  whole  system  of  polity.  Their  authors  seem  bent  on 
prying  away  mountains  of  granite  with  levers  of  straw  ! 

Such  schemes  as  are  here  discussed  will  do  no  good  to  the  blacks  nor 
the  whites,  unless  a  scheme  of  forced  expatriation  be  at  once  started  ;  and 
that  is  attended  with  formidable  obstacles.  The  North  will  become  in 
turn  the  worse  than  masters  of  the  slaves.  For  very  self-protection  and 
to  prevent  sucli  a  ruinous  and  adulterous  mixture  of  society,  the  North 
will  rise  to  drive  the  free  blacks  from  their  soil.  Interest,  which  is 
stronger  in  society,  in  the  end,  than  philanthropy,  will  issue  its  edict  of 
expatriation,  and  no  good  will  accrue  to  the  black  or  white.  If  you  would 
barbarize  tke  war,  undignify  its  object,  and,  indeed,  make  it  a  failure  in 
every  sense,  you  may  follow  the  impracticable  schemes  of  New  England 
politics,  and  their  neophytes  in  the  country.  These  emancipation  schemes 
will  divide  the  North,  and  create  new  dissension  and  rebellion  in  the  bor 
der  States.  They  will  paralyze  the  efforts  of  the  army,  and  make  cold 
and  indifferent  the  now  ardent  and  anxious  friends  of  the  Union.  This 
division  of  the  North  now,  when  all  are  united  by  State  legislation  and 
Federal  action  to  defend  our  flag  and  sovereignty,  would  tend  to  destroy 
the  hope  which  has  buoyed  us  in  this  great  conflict. 

It  would  be  an  act  of  fraud  on  the  soldiers  and  officers  of  the  grand 
Army  of  the  Republic.  They  were  called  out  by  a  proclamation  of  the 
3d  of  May,  which  was  in  harmony  with  the  action  of  Congress.  The 
Crittenden  resolutions  were  an  explicit  avowal  of  the  only  and  legitimate 
object  of  this  war.  (House  Journal  of  last  session,  p.  129.) 

To  divert  it  now  into  a  war  against  the  institution  of  slavery  will  be 
to  make  it  the  "  violent  and  remorseless  revolutionary  struggle  "  which  the 
President  fears.  Besides,  it  would  make  it  a  gigantic  swindle  upon  the 
people,  upon  our  votes  for  taxes,  and  upon  the  soldiers  who  imperil  their 
lives  in  defence  of  the  Union  and  its  authority.  This  was  not  the  under 
standing  of  a  large  party  in  this  country  who  rallied  at  the  call  of  Douglas. 
He  most  distinctly  disavowed  such  an  object.  He  would  not  by  a  Federal 
army,  any  more  than  by  a  Federal  Congress,  interfere  with  State  laws 
and  institutions.  So  he  declared  over  and  over  again.  This  forum  is  no 
place  Jfor  its  discussion,  much  less  for  its  enactment.  If  the  State  Legis 
latures,  in  their  sovereign  will,  choose  to  do  this,  it  is  for  them,  not  for  us. 
We  have  no  right ;  and  it  is  none  of  our  business  to  make  the  Federal 
Government  a  moral  reform  society.  This  attempt  has  broken  the  Union  ; 
and  the  continuance  of  the  effort  may  widen  the  breach  until  the  separa 
tion  is  everlasting.  As  most  of  our  ills  come  by  slavery  discussions  and 


CIVIL  WAE.  235 

laws,  why  may  we  not  now  pause  ?  Why  do  not  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side,  who  have  now  before  them  the  results  of  this  most  troublesome  agi 
tation,  cease  their  clamor?  Those  who  keep  it  up  are  disunionists. 
Their  talk  is  treason.  They  deserve  a  traitor's  fate  as  much  as  Davis  or 
Wigfall.  Is  it  not  enough  that  a  million  of  men  are  employed  in  violence 
and  bloodshed  ;  not  enough  that  our  trade  and  commerce  are  paralyzed  ; 
that  our  revenue  has  fallen  off  over  $32,000,000  ;  that  by  1863  our 
national  debt,  as  estimated  by  Mr.  Chase,  will  be  $897,322,802  ;  not 
enough  that  we  are  to  pledge  $150,000,000  this  year  of  taxation  to  meet 
interest  and  expenses  ;  not  enough  that  ray  own  State  pays  one-tenth  of 
this  ;  is  it  not  enough  that  our  currency  is  to  be  vitiated,  and  bankruptcy 
to  overwhelm  us ;  not  enough  that  our  highways  are  closed,  our  flag  in 
sulted,  our  sovereignty  derided,  our  whole  nationality  in  peril ;  not  enough 
that  a  dictator  is  openly  threatened ;  not  enough  that  it  is  declared  here 
that  the  Constitution  shall  be  overslaughed,  on  the  plea  of  necessity  ;  that 
all  its  limitations  shall  be  overleaped,  ruthlessly  and  aimlessly?  Are  we 
to  have  added  the  horror  of  an  endless  war  of  hate  ;  the  hopelessness  of  all 
reconciliation  ;  the  prospect  and  fact  of  a  divided  North  ;  the  burdens  of 
a  taxation  only  equalled  by  the  monarchies  of  Europe  ?  Heaven  forbid  ! 
If  God  in  his  mercy  would  strike  down,  not  only  politically  but  physically, 
the  marplots  who  are  warring  on  their  own  Administration  and  Govern 
ment,  it  would  indeed  be  a  blessing  compared  with  this  prospect. 

We  may  differ  here  about  our  interior  government.  We  may  have 
our  parties  of  Administration  and  opposition.  These  differences  of  opin 
ion  are  privileges  of  constitutional  sanction  and  individual  conscience. 
Matters  may  go  on  in  our  Government  as  to  which  we  may  have  a  sad 
and  painful  reticence,  and  as  to  which  we  may  withhold  our  denunciation 
out  of  regard  to  the  common  weal.  Even  patriotism  may  for  a  time  be 
silent  in  the  eclipses  of  a  mismanaged  administration  of  a  good  Govern 
ment.  The  national  feeling  may  still  be  paramount,  and  all  may  go  well. 
Thousands  of  our  people  now  regard  with  dampened  spirit  and  sad  silence 
the  condition  of  our  country ;  and  they  are  almost  dismayed  by  our 
terrible  present  and  still  unpropitious  future  ;  yet  not  altogether  despair 
ing,  but  seeking  in  the  unity  of  the  people,  yet  loyal,  the  hope  of  restora 
tion.  They  will  be  patient  in  paying  taxes,  in  trusting  our  commanders 
and  rulers,  in  giving  their  sons  to  the  war  and  their  daughters  to  the  la 
bors  of  beneficence. 

But  what  will  become  of  this  sad  yet  undismayed  patriotism,  if  the 
hopes  of  Union  are  to  be  quenched  by  this. persistent  and  unreasoning 
fanaticism?  Are  not  such  schemes  fraught  with  the  very  vital  and 
permanent  principle  of  mischief?  If  so,  will  not  the  very  essence  of 
national  existence  be  irrecoverably  lost  by  their  success  ?  We  shall  lose 
our  place  among  the  nations,  our  relative  importance  on  the  globe,  our 
physical  independence,  our  weight  in  the  equilibrium  of  powers,  our 
frontiers,  alliances,  and  geography.  These  make  up  the  immortality  of  a 
nation.  They  are  above  the  changes  of  administration  and  outlive  dy 
nasties.  He  who  remains  silent  when  such  interests  are  at  stake  is 
treacherous  to  his  land  and  to  his  God. 

It  is  in  this  most  vital  point  that  these  movements  here  in  Congress, 
,which  are  the  continuation  of  contumacious  fanaticism,  will  do  their  mis- 


236  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

chief.  To  succeed  in  their  bad  schemes  these  fanatics  undermine  the  young 
general  in  command,  deride  the  movements  of  the  army,  create  impatience, 
distrust,  and  coldness,  and  will  rejoice  in  our  ruin.  On  behalf  of  the  tax 
payer,  the  soldier,  the  citizen,  the  patriot,  the  section  I  represent,  and  the 
very  physical  and  moral  relations  of  our  Government,  I  protest  against 
that  dangerous  and  horrible  malversation  of  our  Congressional  office, 
which  would  usurp  the  power  of  the  States  over  their  own  institutions, 
seek  through  the  army  the  further  disruption  of  the  Government,  destroy 
the  last  vestiges  of  our  confederation,  and  stop  its  magnificent  career 
among  the  nations. 


EMANCIPATION  AND  ITS  RESULTS. 

AMBIGUOUS  POLICY — EXTREME  MEN— CONFISCATION  AND  KINDRED  MEASURES — POLICE  RIGHTS 
OF  STATES  OVER  THE  NEGRO — IMMIGRATION  AND  SUFFRAGE — FREE  NEGROES  AND  THEIR 
COLONIES. 

Delivered  June  6^,  1862. 

Mr.  SPEAKER  :  At  the  beginning  of  our  civil  conflict  this  House 
passed  almost  unanimously  a  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Ken 
tucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEX]  as  to  the  character  of  the  war.  It  was  a  pledge 
that  the  war  should  not  be  waged  in  hostility  to  the  institutions  of  any  of 
the  States.  On  the  faith  of  that  pledge  men  and  money  were  voted.  Since 
then  that  pledge  has  been  broken  both  in  this  House  and  out  of  it. 

Sir,  I  have  watched  with  anxiety  the  conduct  of  this  House.  No  heed 
is  given  here  to  the  warning  of  loyal  Union  men  from  slave  States. 
Their  advice  is  met  with  the  cry,  "  Oh,  they  are  for  slavery  ;  and  no  pro- 
slavery  man  can  be  loyal."  No  attention  is  paid  to  old-time  political 
opponents  whose  friends  are  the  majority  in  the  field.  For  aiding  to  pre 
serve  the  Union,  which  they  have  been  taught  by  their  party  canons  to  re 
vere,  they  are  treated  to  taunts  and  slander. 

Measures  like  those  from  Massachusetts,  which  would  hold  States  as 
conquered  fiefs  ;  which  would  recognize  republics  abroad  because  they 
are  black ;  which  would  create  equality  of  black  and  white,  in  carrying 
the  mails,  such  as  passed  the  Senate ;  which,  like  the  acts  of  confiscation 
and  emancipation  here  urged,  are  to  prematurely  free  the  whole  or  a  por 
tion  of  the  black  population ;  all  these  measures,  sir,  are  subversive  of 
the  institutions  of  the  States,  and  have  created  apprehension  and  distrust. 

Before  the  President  can  crush  this  revolt,  he  must  reassure  and  reani 
mate  the  public  mind.  He  has  already  done  well  in  crushing  the  Fremont 
and  Hunter  proclamations.  He  has  done  well  in  protecting  General 
McClellan  from  the  fanatics,  who  hungered  for  his  overthrow.  He  has 
done  well  in  many  other  respects  from  which  I  would  not  detract  by  any 
hostile  criticism  now.  I  would  sustain  my  country  and  its  constitution 
even  if  I  were  not  on  oath  so  to  do.  It  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  wish  that 
there  were  no  ambiguity  in  our  public  counsels.  This  war  can  have  no 
end  until  the  President  clears  away  all  uncertainty.  The  more  definite 
the  object,  the  more  firm  will  the  Government  be  in  asserting  it.  Its  gen- 


CIVIL   WAK.  237 

erals  may  conquer,  but  cannot  hold.  It  may  by  physical  force  subdue, 
but  it  must  do  more  to  reinstate  public  confidence.  It  must  control  the 
civil  and  moral  elements,  by  whose  influence  alone  can  the  subdued  be 
reconciled."  I  am  anxious  to  believe  that  the  President  means  right. 
But  of  the  men  who  control  this  Congress  I  speak  plainly.  They  pull 
down ;  they  do  not  build  up.  They  have  an  activity  in  destroying ; 
nothing  of  the  genius  of  man  in  constructing.  Salvation  is  not  their  forte. 
It  is  their  conduct  which  creates  ambiguity. 

There  is  something  needed  in  making  successful  civil  war  besides  rais 
ing  money  and  armies.  You  must  keep  up  the  confidence  and  spirit  of 
the  people.  It  must  not  only  be  animated  by  a  noble  passion  at  the  out 
set,  but  it  must  be  sustained  by  confidence  in  the  cause.  You  dispirit  the 
army  and  destroy  its  power,  if  you  give  forth  an  uncertain  sound.  Is 
there  a  member  here  who  dare  say  that  Ohio  troops  will  fight  successfully 
or  fight  at  all,  if  the  result  shall  be  the  flight  and  movement  of  the  black 
race  by  millions  northwrard  to  their  own  State  ?  Our  soldiers  will  endure 
great  sacrifices,  if  they  think  that  they  are  planting  the  flag  over  States 
where  it  has  been  shamelessly  dishonored,  and  if  they  believe  that  the 
United  States,  as  they  have  bee'n  made  by  our  Constitution  and  constel 
lated  by  time,  are  to  be  again  enstarred  in  full  brilliancy.  But  when  you 
make  men  homeless — when  you  crape  the  doors  and  bedew  the  eyes  of  the 
bereaved — when  bloody  calamity  darkens  the  hearth  and  heavy  taxes  op 
press  labor,  there  must  be  no  ambiguity  of  policy.  You  wish  to  put  down 
this  rebellion ;  yet  you  despise  the  counsels  of  the  Union  men  of  the 
South,  who  tell  you  that  your  anti-slavery  crusade  adds  to  the  rebel  army 
day  after  day  thousands  of  soldiers  and  to  the  southern  treasury  millions 
of  money.  You  presume  on  their  forbearance,  not  caring  to  know  that 
their  lips  are  often  sealed  here,  because  by  denouncing  you,  the  secession 
element  which  is  kept  alive  by  your  action  in  their  States,  will  poin$  to 
their  denunciations  of  your  conduct  as  a  justification  of  the  rebellion.  You 
will  justify  this  rebellion  to  history,  provided  only  your  vengeance  and 
your  election  are  made  sure. 

Sir,  I  fear  and*  distrust  much  which  I  cannot,  from  motives  of  prudence 
and  patriotism,  utter.  Is  it  the  policy  here,  as  it  would  seem  to  be,  to 
force  the  Union  men  South  into  some  rash  expression  or  act,  by  such  proc 
lamations  as  Hunter's,  and  such  legislation  as  we  have  had ;  and  then  to 
charge  this  rashness  as  an  excuse  for  converting  the  war  into  a  St.  Do 
mingo  insurrection,  turning  the  South  into  one  utter  desolation  ?  Is  it  in 
anticipation  of  this,  that  we  have  arms  for  negroes  sent  to  South  Carolina 
and  Louisiana  ?  We  can  get  no  information  on  these  subjects,  though  we 
strive  for  it.  Are  we  to  be  deceived  by  the  prevarication  of  this  Congress 
in  regard  to  extreme  measures?  In  the  mean  time  are  these  extreme 
measures  to  be  taken  as  the  army  advances  with  its  triumphant  flag  ?  In 
the  name  of  God,  is  no  man's  hand  to  be  raised  to  retard  the  downward, 
desperate  course  of  these  extreme  men  ?  Will  not  the  President  at  once 
leap  to  fill  the  niche  in  history,  pointed  out  to  him  by  my  friend  from 
Kentucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN]  ?  He  has  done  so  many  noble  acts,  in  spite 
of  the  lashings  of  his  friends,  will  he  not  change  this  equivocal  situation, 
and  give  us  reassurance  in  our  doubt  and  trouble,  like  that  which  dictated 
the  Crittenden  resolve?  Such  assurance  would  make  the  country  ring 


238  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

with  his  praises.  It  would  make  our  taxation  light,  our  duty  clear,  and 
our  patriotism  resplendent  beyond  all  that  is  written  in  the  annals  of  man. 

I  trace  the  murmurs  of  discontent  which  come  to  us  from  army  and 
people,  to  the  alliance  between  Republicans  and  Abolitionists.  That  alli 
ance  may  be  natural,  but  it  is  not  patriotic.  The  Philadelphia  platform 
of  no  more  slave  States,  and  Republicanism  with  its  Chicago  dogma  of 
no  more  slave  territory,  may  be  innocent  in  intention,  but  allied  with 
Abolitionism,  with  its  raids  and  war  upon  slavery  everywhere  and  its  de 
fiance  of  the  Constitution,  become  crime.  Is  this  alliance  the  forerunner 
of  that  perfect  Union  when  u  Liberty  shall  be  proclaimed  throughout  all 
the  land  and  to  all  the  inhabitants  thereof "  ?  Is  it  the  dawn  of  that  mil- 
,fcnnial  day  which  shall  reflect  back  the  sabre,  the  musket,  and  the  torch  in 
/  the  hands  of  the  enfranchised  African,  already  urged  and  voted  for  by 
thirty  members  in  this  House?  We  want  no  more  poetry  about  striking 
'  off  chains  and  bidding  the  oppressed  go.  Plain  people  want  to  know 
whether  the  chains  will  not  be  put  upon  white  limbs ;  and  whither  the 
oppressed  are  to  go.  If  the  industry  of  the  North  is  to  be  fettered  with 
their  support ;  if  they  are  to  go  to  Ohio  and  the  North,  we  want  to  know 
it.  Nay,  we  want,  if  we  can,  to  stop  it.  As  I  am  anxious  to  see  our 
country  restored  to  its  former  condition,  I  would  protest  against  this 
ambiguous  policy.  I  have  seen  a  year  of  cruel  distrust  of  our  generals 
because  they  were  faithful  to  our  Constitution  and  the  Union.  I  have 
seen  in  and  out  of  this  House  the  thieves  of  character  assailing  good  men 
because  such  men  had  a  policy  not  based  on  visions  of  African  freedom. 
The  blood  of  our  brave  soldiers  flows  like  water  in  aid  of  a  holy  cause. 
It  would  be-a  criminal  silence  for  me  to  forbear  to  characterize  this  cruel, 
fraudulent  change  of  that  holy  cause,  into  such  dangerous  and  suicidal 
schemes. 

Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  this  chamber  have  been  determined  to 
discuss  the  causes  of  this  rebellion.  One  would  have  supposed  that  pru 
dence  on  that  theme  would  have  sealed  them  into  silence.  Slavery,  they 
say,  is  the  only  cause,  and  their  logic  is,  eradicate  the  cause,  and  the  war 
will  stop.  Slavery  is  the  occasion,  but  not  the  cause.  Slavery  has 
existed  for  nearly  seventy  years,  and  the  United  States  prospered  in  its 
unity.  Slavery  agitation,  North  and  South,  is  the  cause,  and  it  has  been 
carried  on  by  both  abolition  and  secession.  It  takes  two  millstones  to 
grind  the  grist.  From  the  beginning  of  secession  I  denounced  it.  I  be 
lieve,  in  view  of  all  its  consequences,  that  it  is  the  worst  crime  since  the 
scene  on  Calvary.  But,  sir,  I  am  at  as  great  a  loss  how  to  apportion  the 
guilt  between  secession  and  the  abolition  which  begat  it,  as  I  would  be  to 
apportion  the  guilt  of  the  crucifixion  between  Judas  and  the  Roman  soldiers. 
If  there  is  any  difference,  it  is  in  favor  of  the  bold  parricide,  and  against  the 
insidious  betrayer.  And  now,  as  the  climax  of  this  abolitionism,  we  find 
the  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  when  called  on  to  send  more  troops  to  the 
aid  of  the  Government,  laying  down  conditions — conditions  to  his  loyalty. 
He  is  willing  for  his  people  to  crowd  the  roads  with  recruits,  if  only  the 
blacks  are  to  be  freed  by  the  war,  and  Hunter's  proclamation  is  left  un 
touched  by  the  President.  But  if  this  be  not  done,  it  will  be  a  heavy 
draft  on  the  patriotism  of  Massachusetts.  If  the  blacks  are  to  be  freed  ; 
if  slavery  is  to  be  uprooted.  Shakespeare  says :  "  Your  if  is  a  great 


CIVIL   WAE.  239 

peacemaker."  This  abolition  "  if"  sir,  is  an  infamous  traitor.  I  could 
name  members  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  who,  though  few  in  num 
ber,  have  kept  their  faith  without  ambiguity.  But  the  body  of  them  are 
led  by  another  class  of  unmistakable  hue,  who  are  ready  to  follow  the 
conditional  loyalty  of  the  Massachusetts  Governor,  and  to  free  the  ne 
groes,  regardless  of  constitutional  limitations  and  consequences. 

These  destructives,  whatever  they  profess,  when  they  come  to  vote, 
like  the  hues  in  a  prism,  melt  imperceptibly  into  each  other.  Though  we 
imagine  that  we  see  a  difference  between  them,  yet  altogether  they  make 
up  that  light  which  is  to  guide  us  in  our  troubles.  God  help  us  when 
such  light  leads  !  Such  friends  are  like  those  in  the  rebel  army  who  ap 
proach  our  soldiers  with  white  flags,  crying  "  Don't  fire  !  we  are  Union 
men ;  don't  fire  !  "  and  at  the  very  moment  of  our  confidence,  they  inflict 
their  deadly  treachery  upon  our  flag ! 

But  it  is  ever  thus.  History  shows  it.  Extreme  men  drag  the  moder 
ate  men  with  them.  The  devil,  it  is  said,  holds  his  own  by  a  hair.  He 
has  entered  into  this  majority  as  he  entered  into  the  swine  ;  and  they  will, 
by  diabolic  impulse,  be  driven  at  last  into  the  sea.  At  last — but  when  is 
that  time  to  come?  When  the  country  is  ruined?  Must  these  northern 
fanatics  be  sated  with  negroes,  taxes,  and  blood,  with  division  north  and 
devastation  south  and  peril  to  constitutional  liberty  everywhere,  before  re 
lief  shall  come  ?  They  will  not  halt  until  their  darling  schemes  are  con 
summated.  History  tells  us  that  such  zealots  do  not  and  cannot  go  back 
ward.  Robespierre,  the  gentle  judge  at  Arras,  in  1783,  resigned  rather 
than  condemn  a  criminal  to  death.  In  ten  years  after,  filled  with  the  en 
thusiasm  of  Rousseau,  he  claimed  for  the  blacks  in  the  French  colonies  a 
participation  in  political  rights,  and  exclaimed,  not  unlike  members  here, 
"  Let  the  colonies  perish,  rather  than  a  principle  !  "  But  he  was  the  same 
Robespierre  who  led  the  Jacobins  to  demand  the  King's  head  in  1792, 
who  established  the  reign  of  terror,  and  whose  motto  was,  "  that  to  live 
was  a  crime."  He  could  take  no  step  backward.  Onward,  onward  from 
excess  to  excess,  until  his  name  became  the  obloquy  of  the  world.  Only 
his  own  death,  by  the  same  terrorism,  ended  his  terrible  rule.  The  same 
result  took  place  at  Rome,  in  the  time  of  Gracchus.  It  is  so  everywhere 
when  passion  is  driven  to  excess.  Our  only  safety  now  lies  in  moderate 
and  patriotic  counsels,  not  rash  and  vindictive  action.  Libertatem  in  me 
requiro,  non  in  pertinacia,  sed  quddam  moderatione  positam  putabo.  Mr. 
Speaker,  do  not  think  I  overstate  these  perils  from  extreme  men.  Have 
not  our  best  statesmen,  like  Clay  and  Douglas,  warned  us  of  this  time? 
Does  not  the  venerable  statesman  of  Kentucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN]  con 
tinue  to  warn — in  vain  ?  Your  records  are  crowded  with  remonstrances 
of  the  great  and  good  against  this  sectional  warfare  to  uproot  a  social  sys 
tem,  whose  result  will  be  a  war  of  ruin.  I  appeal  to  you  now,  as  I  did 
more  than  a  year  ago  to  the  extreme  men  of  the  South,  to  halt,  to  con 
sider,  before  it  is  entirely  too  late. 

One  thing  is  sure,  that  out  of  all  this  ambiguity,  the  tendency  of  legis 
lative  action  here  is  to  free  the  slaves  of  the  South  and  hurl  them  in  hordes 
upon  the  North.  Events,  says  Phillips,  are  grinding  out  the  freedom  of 
the  negro ;  and  these  abolition  bills  are  events.  The  confiscation  bill 
passed  last  week,  and  the  emancipation  bill  resurrected  by  a  majority  of 


240  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

four  after  its  temporary  death,  have  this  meaning.  They  will  not  aid  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  the  war.  That  part  of  the  title  of  the  confiscation 
bill  which  so  affirms  is  a  hypocritical  falsehood.  The  gentleman  from 
Missouri  [Mr.  PHELPS]  has  demonstrated  that.  Even  Wendell  Phillips 
laughs  at  such  bills.  "  You  might  as  well,"  he  says,  "  call  upon  the 
poorhouse  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  town.  Take  away  the  slaves, 
and  they  have  not  enough  left  to  pay  one  month's  expenses  of  the  war." 
The  "  Tribune  "  sneers  at  such  confiscations,  and  with  more  than  its  usual 
sense,  when  it  says,  that  they  amount  to  nothing ;  that  you  must  first  get 
the  land  and  the  negroes,  and  that  then  the  expenses  of  confiscation  and 
the  general  amnesty  which  must  follow  to  all  but  the  leaders,  will  render 
your  confiscation  valueless. 

Such  bills  are  not  constitutional.  That  was  shown  conclusively  by 
the  learned  jurist  [Mr.  THOMAS]  from  Massachusetts,  as  well  as  by  the 
Senators  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  COWAN]  and  Vermont  [Mr.  COLLAMER]. 
They  contravene  the  first  and  third  articles  of  the  Constitution : 

"  No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be  passed." 

"  The  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by  jury  ;  and  such 
trial  shall  be  held  in  the  State  where  the  said  crimes  shall  have  been  committed  ;  but  when 
not  committed  within  any  State,  the  trial  shall  be  at  such  place  or  places  as  the  Congress 
may  by  law  have  directed." 

"  Treason  against  the  United  States  shall  consist  only  in  levying  war  against  them,  or 
in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort." 

"  No  person  shall  be  convicted  of  treason  unless  on  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses  to 
the  same  overt  act,  or  on  confession  in  open  court." 

"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason,  but  no  attain 
der  of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood,  or  forfeiture,  except  during  the  life  of  the 
person  attainted." 

They  contravene  the  following  provisions,  among  the  amendments  of 
the  Constitution : 

"  ARTICLE  THE  FIFTH.  No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or  otherwise 
infamous  crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury,  except  in  cases 
arising  in  the  land  and  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia,  when  in  actual  service,  in  time  of 
war  and  public  danger ;  nor  shall  any  person  be  subject,  for  the  same  offence,  to  be  twice 
put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb  ;  nor  shall  be  compelled  in  any  criminal  case  to  be  a  wit 
ness  against  himself,  nor  to  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process 
of  law  ;  nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public  use  without  just  compensation. 

"ARTICLE  THE  SIXTH.  In  all  criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right 
to  a  speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State  and  district  wherein  the 
crime  shall  have  been  committed,  which  district  shall  have  been  previously  ascertained  by 
law,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation ;  to  be  confronted  with 
the  witnesses  against  him ;  to  have  compulsory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his 
favor,  and  to  have  the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defence." 

If,  when  swearing  to  sustain  these  clauses  of  the  Constitution,  we  have 
not  taken  u  dicers'  oaths,"  we  must  refuse  all  legislation  which  attaints 
any  one  for  treason.  We  can  declare  the  punishment  of  treason,  to  be 
meted  out  by  "  due  process  of  law  "  in  the  proper  tribunals.  We  have 
already  done  so.  It  is  death.  But  for  every  crime  there  must  be  trial 
and  conviction.  It  is  the  very  essence  of  despotism  to  confiscate  without 
such  legal  impeachment.  Against  such  legislative  tyranny  the  authors  of 
our  Constitution  framed  express  clauses.  They  did  it,  as  Judge  Story 
gays  (2  Story's  Commentaries,  §  1344),  to  guard  against  the  injus 
tice  and  iniquity  which  England  inflicted  "  in  times  of  rebellion  or  of 


CIVIL   WAR.  241 

gross  subserviency  to  the  crown,  or  of  violent  political  excitements — 
periods  in  which  all  nations  are  most  liable  (as  well  the  free  as  the 
enslaved)  to  forget  their  duties  and  to  trample  upon  the  rights  and  liberties 
of  others."  The  sentiment  of  the  accomplished  men  of  Congress  being 
against  these  bills  as  unconstitutional,  resort  was  next  had  to  the  law  of 
nations  to  justify  them.  Members,  who  a  year  ago  claimed  that  this 
rebellion  was  not  a  civil  war,  are  now  quick  to  find  out  that  it  is  so,  when 
it  will  answer  the  purposes  of  vengeance  and  emancipation.  The  Secre 
tary  of  War,  in  his  order  of  April  9, 1862,  expressly  recognized  the  rebel 
lion  as  a  "  civil  war."  When,  a  year  ago,  I  embodied  the  doctrine,  that 
from  the  formidable  character  and  number  of  the  insurgents,  the  laws  of 
civil  war,  as  between  belligerent  nations,  ought  to  obtain,  copied  though 
my  resolution  was  from  Vattel  himself,  gentlemen  inconsiderately  voted 
it  down.  Vattel  (Book  3,  chap.  13,  §  295)  and  other  authoritative  pub 
licists  declare  what  is  a  public  war. 

"  The  war  between  the  two  parties  stands  on  the  same  ground,  in  every  respect,  as  a 
public  war  between  two  different  nations.  They  decide  their  quarrel  by  arms,  as  two  dif 
ferent  nations  would  do.  The  obligation  to  observe  the  common  laws  of  war  toward  each 
other  is,  therefore,  absolute." 

Since  then  flags  of  truce,  exchange  of  prisoners,  and  other  rules  of 
civilized  warfare  have  been  practiced  by  our  Government.  England  and 
France  have  recognized  this  relation.  Now,  if  the  laws  of  war  as  be 
tween  nations  prevail  in  this  contest,  as  gentlemen  now  argue,  then  I 
point  to  the  humane  code  that  private  property  on  land  shall  not  be  confis 
cated,  except  it  be  contraband  of  war.  That  slaves  are  contraband  when 
used  on  fortifications,  and  are  confiscate,  is  no  question  now,  since  Con 
gress  has  enacted  a  law  making  each  slave  so  used  confiscate  to  the  State. 
But  if  by  the  laws  of  the  States  slaves  are  personal  property,  as  the  courts 
have  decided,  then  the  law  of  nations  reaches  them,  and  they  are  not  con 
fiscate.  That  law  of  nations  has  no  exceptions  but  contraband.  It  is  so 
admitted  by  all.  America  at  least  has  acted  on  it.  Franklin,  in  his 
treaty  with  Prussia  ;  Washington,  in  his  letter  to  Rochamheau  ;  Hamil 
ton,  Jefferson,  Clay,  John  Quincy  Adams,  Pierce,  Marcy,  Lincoln,  and 
Seward,  have  taken  it  for  granted.  It  is  too  late  to  question  it.  They 
sought  to  extend  it,  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  from  the  land  to  the  sea. 
I  have,  this  session,  in  a  speech  on  neutral  maritime  rights,  elucidated  this 
doctrine  and  its  history.  I  have  shown  that  this  was  the  object  of  the 
Paris  conference  of  1856,  and  of  the  Marcy  amendment  proposed  to  the 
great  maritime  powers.  To  this  doctrine  the  assent  of  forty-six  powers 
was  given,  at  the  request  of  France.  And  this  was  the  object  of  Mr. 
Dayton,  and  Mr.  Adams,  and  our  other  European  ministers  last  summer, 
when,  by  Mr.  Seward's  instruction  and  under  President  Lincoln's  direction, 
our  nation  sought  to  have  all  private  property,  not  contraband  of  war, 
munitions  de  guerre,  free  from  seizure  and  confiscation  by  the  cruisers  and 
privateers  of  belligerents  at  sea,  as  it  was  already  thus  free  upon  land.  I 
therefore  boldly  affirm  that  this  Administration,  to  its  lasting  honor,  is  not 
only  committed  to  this  doctrine,  but  has  favored  its  extension  from  the 
land  to  the  sea.  The  great  men  of  Europe  and  of  this  country  have 
agreed  to  that  doctrine.  It  was  urged  to  soften  the  horrors  of  war,  to 
save  mankind  from  cruel  and  unjust  violence,  to  limit  war  and  its  horrors 
•  16 


24:2  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

to  the  combatants,  to  reduce  the  conflict  to  a  duello  between  armies,  and 
to  save  the  sea,  as  the  laud  was  already  saved  by  law,  from  being  the 
theatre  of  cruel,  predatory,  and  barbarous  practices.  The  reason  urged 
for  this  doctrine  is,  that  it  enables  men  to  make  peace,  lasting  and  frater 
nal,  unembittered  by  cruelties  to  helpless  women  and  children,  to  non- 
combatants,  and  men  of  productive  industry  and  peaceful  occupations  in 
private  life.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind. 

The  wise  men  of  this  Congress  have  urged,  upon  similar  principles, 
that  all  laws  of  vengeance,  confiscation,  and  emancipation  will  only  pro 
long  and  stimulate  the  rebellion,  postpone  peace,  and  frustrate  the  reas- 
sertion  of  Federal  authority.  While  I  would  punish  the  rebel  leaders  for 
treason  ;  while  I  would  do  it  without  vengeance,  in  the  name  and  majesty 
of  the  Republic  which  they  have  tried  to  dispart  and  destroy,  I  would 
not  make  laws,  in  the  very  agony  of  the  strife,  whose  effect  will  be  to 
strengthen  treason,  to  prolong  the  contest,  and  destroy  all  hopes  of  a 
reunion. 

But,  sir,  my  opposition  to  such  bills  proceeds  mainly  from  other  and 
more  conclusive  reasoning.  Granting  that  these  bills  are  constitutional, 
and  that  they  are  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  a  more  momentous  ques 
tion  arises.  It  is  no  less  than  the  preservation  of  the  people  and  society  of 
the  North.  You  free  the  slaves  to  punish  treason ;  you  free  the  slaves 
because  you  hate  slavery.  But  what  if  the  punishment  falls  upon  the 
loyal  North?  Shall  Ohio  suffer  because  South  Caroline  rebels?  Shall 
the  North  be  destroyed  or  impaired  in  its  progressive  prosperity,  by  your 
projects  of  wholesale  freedom  of  the  slaves,  because  it  will  punish,  crip 
ple,  or  destroy  slavery  or  the  South  ? 

It  is  beyond  doubt  that  a  large  number  of  the  four  millions  of  slaves 
will  be  freed  incidentally  by  the  war.  Already  ten  thousand  are  freed  in 
South  Carolina  ;  as  many  more  in  Virginia  ;  and  perhaps  as  many  more 
in  the  West.,  It  has  been  computed  that  already  some  70,000  blacks  are 
freed  by  the  war.  I  see  it  stated  authoritatively  that  more  contrabands 
followed  Gen.  Banks's  retreat  down  the  Virginia  Valley  than  his  troops 
numbered.  These  are  being  scattered  North,  are  becoming  resident  in 
this  District  and  supported  by  the  largesses  of  the  Federal  treasury.  It  is 
said  that  18,000  rations  are  daily  given  out  to  negroes  by  our  Govern 
ment.  This  is  but  a  small  number  of  those  who  are  freed,  or  to  be  freed 
by  these  bills.  The  mildest  confiscation  bill  proposed  will  free  not  less 
than  700,000  slaves.  The  bill  which  is  before  us  frees  three  millions,  at 
least.  The  bills  which  receive  the  favor  of  the  majority  of  the  Republican 
party  will  free  four  millions.  Nothing  less  will  satisfy  this  Congress. 
That  is  now  apparent.  If  you  do  not  free  all,  say  the  extremists,  your 
war  is  rose-water.  If  not  all,  no  peace  is  possible.  It  may  have  been 
wrong  to  have  held  them  in  slavery.  Is  it  right  to  set  them  free,  to 
starve?  What  is  to  be  done  with  them?  This  is  the  riddle,  more  dif 
ficult  than  that  of  the  Ethiopian  Sphinx.  Like  that  fabled  monster, 
with  the  man's  head  and  the  lion's  body,  it  has  a  puzzle,  and  we  have  no 
CEdipus  to  solve  it.  One  gentleman  proposes  to  free  the  slaves,  appren 
tice  them  awhile  to  raise  money,  and  then  colonize  them.  This  scheme 
has  its  advocates.  Regardless  of  constitutional  restrictions,  he  would 
have  us  first  free  them,  or  as  many  as  are  owned  by  rebels,  and  buy  as 


CIVIL   WAR.  243 

many  as  are  owned  by  loyal  men,  and  then,  by  the  money  raised  by  ap 
prenticeship,  deport  them  to  Mexico,  South  or  Central  America.  What 
though  it  enslave  the  white  labor  of  the  North  for  a  half  century  !  What 
though  it  divert  the  Federal  Government  into  a  grand  master  of  appren 
tices  !  What  though  it  cost  millions  !  What  though  it  destroy  the  pro 
ductive  industry  of  a  dozen  States  !  It  would  be  a  happy  riddance  at  any 
price.  Such  is  the  argument.  But  another  class  say  to  this  scheme : 
"  No  ;  you  have  no  right  to  send  away  against  his  will  the  African  born 
here.  You  have  no  right  to  buy  him.  He  is  entitled  to  privileges  equally 
with  you.  direct  from  the  hand  of  his  Heavenly  Father,  who  gave  him  a 
charter  to  live  and  own  himself."  This  side  is  championed  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Illinois  [Mr.  LOVEJOY].  Between  these  two  charmers  the 
simple  black  man  stands,  as  a  comic  paper  depictured  him,  with  grinning 
mouth  and  hesitating  mind,  not  knowing  which  to  choose.  One  of  my 
colleagues,  who  speaks  most  nearly  the  sentiments  of  the  majority  here 
[Mr.  BINGHAM],  has  met  the  question  like  a  man,  if  not  like  a  statesman. 
He  denies  first  that  the  States  have  the  right  to  pass  laws  forbidding  the 
immigration  of  blacks  within  their  borders. 

I  will  not  spend  much  time,  sir,  to  controvert  this  doctine.  Such  laws 
have  existed  in  western  States  and  in  Ohio  unchallenged.  Judge  Doug 
las  was  right  when,  in  his  contest  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  he  maintained  that 
these  commonwealths  were  for  white  men.  Aside  from  the  question  of 
policy,  there  is  an  admitted  right  in  each  State  to  make  or  unmake  its 
citizenship,  to  declare  who  is  and  who  is  not  entitled  thereto.  That  will 
not  be  denied.  When  Minnesota  came  here  for  admission,  that  was  set 
tled.  But  my  colleague  seems  to  admit  that  political  privileges,  like  that 
of  suffrage,  may  be  fixed  by  State  laws.  Indeed,  the  Supreme  Court 
have  decided  that  the  State  has  the  exclusive  right  so  to  do.  If  so,  by 
what  reason  can  a  State  deprive  the  black  race  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  on 
which  depend  all  laws,  all  protection,  all  assessment  of  taxes,  all  punish 
ments,  even  the  matter  of  life  and  death,  and  yet  not  have  power  to  forbid 
such  black  race,  as  a  dangerous  element,  from  mingling  with  its  popula 
tion  ?  The  constitution  of  Illinois,  just  submitted  to  the  people,  denies 
to  the  negro  the  right  of  emigrating  to,  or  ha\ing  citizenship  in  that 
State.  Hitherto  the  same  prohibition  has  existed  in  Illinois  and  Indiana,  / 
and  other  western  States.  In  Virginia,  as  a  police  regulation,  free  ne-v 
groes  are  forbidden  to  emigrate  to  that  State.  It  was  never  disputed, 
never,  until  Oregon  applied  for  admission.  Her  constitution  provided 
that  no  person  of  African  descent,  though  free,  and  no  Chinaman,  should  , 
emigrate  to  that  State,  or  should  have  the  right  of  suffrage  or  hold  prop 
erty.  In  the  Globe  of  the  35th  Congress  (p.  193  et  seq.)  the  debate  is 
reported.  A  Senator  from  Maine  denied  the  right  thus  to  exclude  black 
men,  who  were  citizens  of  his  own  State,  by  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Maine.  He  held,  as  I  suppose  my  colleague  [Mr.  BINGHAM] 
holds,  that  no  one  portion  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  can  inter 
fere  with  the  rights  of  another  portion  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  that  negroes  are  citizens.  In  disregarding  the  decision  of  the  Federal 
court  against  negro  citizenship,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  see  what  authority  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Maine,  or  the  ipse  dixit  of  my  colleague,  ought  to 
have.  But  waiving  that,  it  was  answered  by  a  Republican  Senator  from 


244  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN    CONGRESS. 

Illinois  [Mr.  TRUMBULL],  who  denied  that  negroes  ought  to  be  placed 
on  an  equal  footing  in  the  States  with  white  citizens.  Judge  Douglas, 
whose  word  is  now  so  sacred  where  once  it  was  so  contemned,  said : 

"As  to  the  power  of  a  State  to  exclude  the  negro  population  from  her  limits,  I  had 
hoped  there  was  no  dispute  at  this  day.  If  Maine  chooses  to  encourage  a  colored  instead 
of  a  white  population,  it  is  her  right  to  do  so.  These  are  matters  which  belong  to  the 
sovereignty  of  each  State  to  decide  for  itself.  Maine  has  decided  one  way,  Illinois 
another.  I  thought  that  for  several  years  we  had  recognized  this  doctrine  completely." 

He  might  well  have  thought  so,  with  the  Kansas  Topeka  Constitution 
in  his  mind,  which  the  Republicans  had  indorsed,  and  which  made  it  the 
duty  of  the  first  Legislature  to  pass  laws  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of 
free  negroes  into  Kansas.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  debate,  it  was  gener 
ally  conceded  that  although  members  might,  in  their  discretion,  vote 
against  Oregon  on  account  of  this  prohibition  of  free  negroes,  still  after  a 
State  was  admitted,  she  had  the  full  right  to  make  what  police  regulations 
she  pleased  as  to  her  population.  Oregon  was  admitted  with  this  consti 
tution.  No  question  has  ever  been  raised,  either  in  the  courts  of  that 
State  or  the  United  States,  as  to  the  legality  of  her  prohibition.  I  know 
that  my  colleague  argued  against  the  exclusion  of  negroes  from  Oregon 
as  unconstitutional,  inhuman,  and  atrocious.  He  argued  the  question 
ably.  He  distinguished  between  the  conventional  right  of  suffrage  and  the 
natural  right  of  locomotion  and  emigration.  He  is  consistent  to-day  with 
his  record,  then ;  but  in  my  opinion  consistently  wrong.  It  never  was 
intended,  and  it  is  not  so  written  in  the  Constitution,  that  the  States  should 
give  up  the  right  to  regulate  the  character  of  their  immigration.  If  it 
were  not  so,  there  could  be  no  safety  to  property,  liberty,  or  life,  under 
State  institutions.  A  community  of  Mormons  or  Thugs  might  take  pos 
session  of  a  State,  and  there  would  be  no  remedy.  This  reserved  right 
for  self-protection  to  the  State  has  never  been  given  up,  nor  can  the  dele 
gation  of  this  power  be  inferred  from  any  general  phrase  in  the  instrument 
like  that  which  declares  that  "  the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States."  If  it 
were  inferrible,  we  might  then  conclude  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  were  wrong  in  deciding  that  negroes  were  not  citizens. 
But  history  and  precedent  show  that  the  Supreme  Court  were  right ;  and 
although  they  decided  it  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  no  one  contends  that  this 
part  of  that  decision  was  coram  non  judice.  It  is  authoritative  upon  all 
citizens. 

\  The  right  and  power  to  exclude  Africans  from  the  States  North  being 
compatible  with  our  system  of  State  sovereignty  and  Federal  supremacy, 
I  assert  that  it  is  impolitic,  dangerous,  degrading,  and  unjust  to  the  white 
men  of  Ohio  and  of  the  North,  to  allow  such  immigration.  By  the  census 
of  1860,  in  Ohio,  we  have  36,225  colored  persons  out  of  a  population  of 
2,339,559.  As  a  general  thing,  they  are  vicious,  indolent,  and  improvi 
dent.  They  number,  as  yet,  one  black  to  about  sixty-three  whites ;  but 
their  ratio  of  increase,  during  the  last  ten  years,  has  been  43.30  per  cent., 
while  that  of  the  white  increase  is  only  17.82  per  cent.  About  one-tenth 
of  our  convicts  are  negroes.  I  gather  from  the  census  of  1850,  that  four- 
tenths  of  the  female  prisoners  are  blacks,  although  they  compose  but  one- 
eightieth  of  the  female  population  of  Ohio.  In  Massachusetts  the  convicts 


CIVIL   WAE.  245 

in  the  penitentiary  are  one-sixth  black  ;  Connecticut,  one-third ;  New 
York,  one-fourth.  In  Ohio  the  blacks  are  not  agriculturists.  They 
soon  become  waiters,  barbers,  and  otherwise  subservient  to  the  whites. 
They  have  just  enough  consequence  given  to  them  by  late  events  to  be 
pestilent.  The  resistance  of  the  abolitionists  to  the  Federal  authority  in 
Ohio,  within  the  past  three  years,  was  abetted  by  colored  men,  some  of 
whom  had  received  schooling  enough  at  Oberlin  to  be  vain  and  ostenta 
tiously  seditious. 

The  last  Legislature  of  Ohio,  by  their  committee,  gave  their  proteges 
this  certificate  of  character  in  their  report : 

"  The  negro  race  is  looked  upon  by  the  people  of  Ohio  as  a  class  to  be  kept  by  them 
selves — to  be  debarred  of  social  intercourse  with  the  whites — to  be  deprived  of  all  ad 
vantages  which  they  cannot  enjoy  in  common  with  their  own  class.  Deprived  of  the  ad 
vantages  here  enumerated,  it  could  not  be  expected  that  he  should  attain  any  great 
advancement  in  social  improvement.  Generally,  the  negro  in  Ohio  is  lazy,  ignorant,  and 
vicious." 

If  this  be  true,  it  would  be  well  to  inquire  why  energetic  legislation 
was  not  had,  in  view  of  the  emancipation  schemes  here  impending,  to  pre 
vent  this  lazy,  ignorant,  and  vicious  class  from  overrunning  our  State. 
Such  legislation  was  asked  and  refused. 

If  further  testimony  is  needed  as  to  the  feeling  of  the  people  of  Ohio 
and  the  northwest  as  to  the  blacks,  I  refer  you  to  the  speech  of  an  Ohio 
Senator  [Mr.  SHERMAN].  Speaking  in  favor  of  emancipation  in  this 
District,  he  balanced  himself  on  the  slack  wire  after  this  fashion  : 

"  This  is  a  good  place  to  begin  emancipation  for  another  reason.  This  is  a  very  Par 
adise  for  free  negroes.  Here  they  enjoy  more  social  equality  than  they  do  any  where  else. 
In  the  State  where  I  live  we  do  not  like  negroes.  We  do  not  disguise  our  dislike.  As 
my  friend  from  Indiana  [Mr.  WRIGIIT]  said  yesterday,  the  whole  people  of  the  northwest 
ern  States  are,  for  reasons,  whether  correct  or  not,  opposed  to  having  many  negroes 
among  them,  and  that  principle  or  prejudice  has  been  engrafted  hi  the  legislation  of  nearly 
all  the  northwestern  States." 

It  is  a  fine  thing,  the  Senator  thinks,  to  have  free  negroes  here ;  not 
so  good  in  Ohio.  Here  they  have  a  paradise ;  in  Ohio,  its  opposite,  I 
suppose.  If  the  Senator  could  visit  Green's  Row,  within  the  shadow  of 
this  Capitol,  henceforth  "  Tophet  and  black  Gehenna  called,  the  type  of 
hell,"  and  note  the  squalor,  destitution,  laziness,  crime,  and  degradation, 
there  beginning  to  fester — if  he  could  visit  the  alleys  in  whose  miserable 
hovels  the  blacks  congregate,  he  would  hardly  be  reminded  of  the  paradise 
which  Milton  sang,  with  its  amaranthine  flowers  [laughter],  its  blooming 
trees  of  life,  its  golden  fruitage,  its  amber  rivers  rolling  over  elysian  flow 
ers,  its  hills  and  fountains  and  fresh  shades,  its  dreams  of  love,  and  its 
adoration  of  God.  Alas  !  he  would  find  nothing  here  to  remind  him  of 
that  high  estate  in  Eden,  save  the  fragrance  of  the  spot  and  the  nakedness 
of  its  inhabitants.  [Laughter.]  If  the  rush  of  free  negroes  to  this  para 
dise  continues,  it  would  be  a  blessing  if  Providence  should  send  Satan 
here  in  the  form  of  a  serpent,  and  an  angel  to  drive  the  descendants  of 
Adam  and  Eve  into  the  outer  world.  If  it  continues,  you  will  have  no 
one  here  but  Congressmen  and  negroes,  and  that  will  be  punishment 
enough.  [Laughter.]  You  will  have  to  enact  a  fugitive  law,  to  bring 
the  whites  to  their  capital.  [Laughter.]  The  condition  of  the  negroes 
here  is  not  unlike  their  condition  in  Ohio.  Perhaps  it  is  worse  here 


24:6  EIGHT   YEAB8   IN   CONGKESS. 

than  in  Ohio,  for  their  numbers  are  greater  here  in  proportion  to  the 
population.  This  population  already  on  our  hands  in  Ohio  we  can  take 
care  of;  but  if  we  cannot  stop  more  from  coming,  there  is  no  sense  in 
beginning  to  colonize  the  free  blacks  which  we  have  on  hand.  I  make  no 
proposition  as  to  them  now.  They  do  not,  except  in  certain  localities,  in 
terfere  greatly  either  with  our  laws  or  our  labor.  But  the  question  of 
allowing  more  to  come  in,  is  the  question  I  diycuss,  not  as  to  what  we 
shall  do  with  what  we  have.  This  is  a  question  as  gigantic  as  the  schemes 
of  emancipation.  It  is  a  practical  question,  as  the  war  is  already  throw 
ing  them  within  our  borders  in  great  numbers.  Slavery  may  be  an  evil, 
it  may  be  wrong  for  southern  men  to  use  unpaid  labor ;  but  what  will  be 
the  condition  of  the  people  of  Ohio  when  the  free  jubilee  shall  have  come 
in  its  ripe  and  rotten  maturity?  If  slavery  is  bad,  its  condition,  with  an 
unrestrained  black  population,  only  double  what  we  now  have,  partly 
subservient,  partly  slothful,  partly  criminal,  and  all  disadvantageous  and 
ruinous,  will  be  far  worse. 

I  do  not  speak  these  things  out  of  any  unkindness  to  the  negro.  It  is 
oot  for  the  interest  of  the  free  negroes  of  my  State  that  that  class  of  the 
population  should  be  increased.  I  speak  as  their  friend  when  I  oppose  such 
immigration.  Neither  do  I  blame  the  negro  altogether  for  his  crime,  im 
providence,  and  sloth.  He  is  under  a  sore  calamity  in  this  country.  He 
is  inferior,  distinct,  and  separate,  and  he  has,  perhaps,  sense  enough  to 
perceive  it.  The  advantages  and  equality  of  the  white  man  can  never  be 
his.  As  Dr.  Fuller  expresses  it : 

"  He  sees  and  knows  that  it  is  his  color  only,  that  color  given  him  by  God,  which  ex 
cludes  him  and  his  posterity  from  this  noble  and  ennobling  competition.  And  now,  what 
must  be  the  effect  upon  his  character  ?  It  is  impossible  but  that  the  worst  feelings,  envy, 
hatred,  vindictiveness,  will  secretly  work  in  his  bosom,  rendering  him  unhappy  in  himself, 
and  dangerous  to  the  country.  Already  have  we  had  fearful  premonitions  flashing  up 
here  and  there ;  and  rest  assured,  nothing  but  fear  represses  the  utterance,  deep  and  loud, 
of  passions  which  are  only  the  more  fierce  because  as  yet  they  can  have  no  vent.  If  the 
free  African  is  to  remain  in  this  country,  he  must  either  enjoy  social  equality  and  amal 
gamate  with  the  white  race,  which  is  impossible,  or  he  will  be  discontented,  unhappy,  and 
will  be  ultimately  exterminated.  He  would  not  be  fit  for  freedom,  he  would  not  be  a  man, 
if  he  could  be  satisfied  with  his  position." 

If  history  teaches  any  thing,  it  is  that  it  is  as  hard  to  make  a  servile 
people  free,  as  a  free  people  slaves,  and  that  a  conflict  of  races,  which 
must  result  from  this  policy  of  emancipation,  will  only  end  in  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  weaker.  Rome,  Greece,  West  India,  all  point  to  the  great 
mistake  of  breaking  rudely  the  social  system  of  a  people.  It  was  only 
the  other  day  that  the  news  from  Jamaica  told  us  of  the  insurrection  of 
negroes,  and  their  attack  on  a  principal  city.  A  year  or  so  ago,  if  we  are 
to  credit  Andrew  Johnson,  the  insurrection  of  negroes  in  East  Tennessee 
was  caused  by  a  fear  that  the  whites  would  exterminate  the  negro  popula 
tion  en  masss,  from  a  jealousy  of  negro  labor.  In  this  city,  at  any  mo 
ment,  we  may  look  for  an  entente  occasioned  by  the  crowding  out  of  white 
labor  by  black  contrabands.  The  Government  is  now  paying,  to  support 
negroes,  thousands  of  dollars  weekly,  out  of  the  hard-earned  money  of  the 
people,  raised  to  put  down  the  rebellion ;  so  at  Fortress  Monroe ;  so  at 
Port  Royal. 

Let  us  heed  the  lesson  which  history  has  given  in  other  times,  as  to 


CIVIL   WAE.  247 

what  is  convenient  and  advantageous  under  similar  circumstances.  France 
broke  the  fetters  from  the  Haytian  blacks,  under  the  lead  of  Jacobins  like 
the  member  from  Illinois.  In  less  than  a  half  century,  the  industry  and 
commerce  of  Hayti  were  annihilated ;  the  Sabbath,  the  family,  and  the 
school  became  obsolete ;  the  missionaries  were  more  in  danger — as  the 
historian  of  the  West  Indies,  Mr.  Edwards,  says — of  being  eaten  than  of 
being  heard.  [Laughter.]  Baptist,  Methodist,  and  Episcopalian  minis 
ters  were  expelled  with  a  persecution  equal  to  that  exhibited  lately  on  the 
mountains  of  Syria.  Hayti  was  free  !  But  her  freedom  was  the  freedom 
of  fiends.  Unschooled,  undisciplined,  she  ran  riot  in  her  liberty.  Her 
career  has  but  one  advantage.  It  admonishes  us  of  what  our  fate  shall 
be,  if  we  are  launched  on  the  same  stormful  sea. 

Mr.  LOVEJOY.     Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     No,  sir  ;  I  will  not. 

Mr.  LOVEJOY.  Then  I  raise  the  question  of  order,  that  I  am  entitled 
to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question,  inasmuch  as  he  alluded  to  some  member 
from  the  State  of  Illinois.  I  want  to  know  to  whom  he  referred.  He 
called  some  gentleman  from  Illinois  a  Jacobin. 

Mr.  Cox.  That  is  no  point  of  order  ;  but  I  will  tell  the  gentleman  in 
confidence  whom  I  meant.  I  meant  him.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  LOVEJOY.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know.  Now,  I  want  to  ask 
the  gentleman  another  question. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  did  not  mention  anybody's  name  ;  but  the  gentleman  at 
once  saw  the  appropriateness  of  the  appellation. 

Mr.  LOVEJOY.    We  will  try  that  when  I  come  to  answer  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  London  u  Times "  gives  a  truthful  picture  of  the 
freed  negro  of  Hayti,  which  has  its  counterpart  here  already  : 

u  The  negro  is  a  lazy  animal,  without  any  foresight,  and  therefore  requiring  to  be  led 
and  compelled.  He  is  decidedly  inferior,  very  little  raised  above  the  mere  animal.  He  is 
void  of  self-reliance,  and  is  the  creature  of  circumstances  ;  scarcely  fitted  to  take  care  of 
himself;  has  no  care  for  to-morrow;  has  no  desire  for  property  strong  enough  to  induce 
him  to  labor ;  lives  from  hand  to  mouth.  In  Jamaica,  emancipation  has  thrown  enor 
mous  tracts  of  land  out  of  cultivation,  and  on  these  the  negro  squats,  getting  all  he  wants 
•with  very  little  trouble,  and  sinking,  hi  the  most  absolute  fashion,  back  to  the  savage 
state." 

But  it  may  be  urged  that  there  were  too  many  blacks  for  the  whites  in 
the  West  Indies,  and  the  experiment  failed  in  consequence.  Then  let  us 
go  to  Canada,  where  our  slaves  are  under  English  laws,  and  in  the  midst 
of  people  not  specially  prejudiced.  The  testimony  is  that  settlements  at 
Chatham,  Dawn,  Amherstburg,  Buxton,  Dresden,  and  other  points,  are 
utter  failures.  It  was  soon  discovered  that  the  blacks  preferred  charity 
to- labor.  The  blacks  proved  lazy,  shiftless,  improvident,  "  there  not  be 
ing  more  than  three  or  four  families  of  a  different  character  out  of  the 
one  hundred  and  fifty  which  comprised  the  settlement  at  Buxtou.  They 
suffer  terribly  in  winter  for  want  of  clothing.  The  Dresden  settlement, 
planned  on  the  principle  of  the  Socialists,  proved  a  total  failure.  A  few 
years  since  Chatham  was  a  bright  and  prosperous  village  ;  but  now  more 
than  a  quarter  of  its  population  are  negroes,  and  three-fourths  of  them 
are  worthless  idlers  and  petty  thieves."  But  it  may  still  be  urged,  that 
in  the  North — in  Ohio — the  free  negro  will  work,  will  rise,  will  add  to  the 
security  of  the  State  and  the  prosperity  of  the  people.  I  select  one  from 


248  EIGHT   TEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

a  string  of  black  gems.  I  select  it  from  the  district  of  my  friend  [Mr. 
HARRISON],  who  will  avouch  its  correctness.  Greene  County.  Ohio,  has 
nearly  1,500  negroes.  The  following  extract  from  the  Xenia  (Ohio) 
"  News  "  (a  Republican  paper  in  Greene  County),  will  give  some  idea  of 
their  condition : 

"  There  are  about  one  hundred  negroes  in  Greene  County  who  are  always  out  of  em 
ployment.  A  part  of  these  are  those  who  have  lately  been  freed  by  their  masters,  and 
furnished  with  a  bonus,  on  which  they  are  now  gentlemanly  loafing."  Our  jail  is  contin 
ually  filled  with  negroes  committed  for  petty  offences,  such  as  affrays,  petty  larceny, 
drunkenness,  assault  and  battery,  for  whose  prosecution  and  imprisonment  the  town  of 
Xenia  has  to  pay  about  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum.  And  to  such  persons  going  to 
jail  is  rather  a  pleasure  than  a  disgrace.  They  are  better  fed  and  lodged  there  than  when 
vagabondizing  round  our  streets. 

"  We  have  seen  negro  prostitutes  flaunting  down  Main  street,  three  or  four  abreast, 
sweeping  all  before  them  indiscriminately.  We  have  seen  ladies  of  respectability  running 
upon  the  cellar  doors,  and  even  into  gutters,  to  avoid  being  run  over  by  these  impudent 
hussies.  It  was  only  the  other  evening  that  we  saw  a  lady  completely  turned  around  by 
some  black  girls,  who  never  deviated  from  their  path  in  the  middle  of  the  sidewalk ;  and 
our  own  cheek  has  burned  with  indignation  at  the  lecherous  smile  of  invitation  which 
has  been  flung  into  our  faces  by  these  swarthy  demoiselles.  Other  gentlemen  have  com 
plained  of  the  insulting  boldness  of  their  address.  But  we  are  sickened  with  the  recital. 
It  is  a  disagreeable  task  to  lance  the  sore  which  has  long  been  gathering  unheeded  ;  and 
it  is  equally  so  to  probe  this  evil,  which  unawares  is  growing  in  our  midst.  As  we  have 
in  a  former  number  already  said,  we  feel  no  prejudice  against  the  black  man  on  account 
of  color,  or  for  mere  degradation  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  we  are  unwilling  that  we  should 
be  morally  infected  by  contact  with  an  inferior  race,  the  result  of  which  contact  is  in  no 
way  beneficial  to  the  black,  and  highly  injurious  to  the  white." 

Some  years  ago,  there  was  a  negro  colony  established  in  Brown  Coun 
ty,  Ohio,  as  to  which  the  Cincinnati  "  Gazette  "  said  that  "  in  a  little 
while  the  negroes  became  too  lazy  to  play."  A  Senator  in  Ohio  charac 
terized  the  colony  as  follows  : 

"The  black  settlement  in  Brown  County  was  made  in  1819,  the  original  number  lo 
cated  there  being  four  hundred  and  twenty,  for  whom  about  two  thousand  acres  of  land 
were  procured.  From  the  commencement  there  has  been  no  improvement  in  their  morals 
or  habits.  Idleness  and  vice  are  the  prevailing  concomitants.  The  cost  of  criminal  pros 
ecutions  has  been  very  large  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  inhabitants,  and  keeps  up  a 
proportionate  average  with  their  increase.  In  the  vicinity  of  this  settlement  there  is  not 
a  family  within  two  miles  who  are  not  kept  in  constant  dread  of  depredations  or  injury 
of  some  sort.  Every  thing  valuable  that  can  be  removed  is  stolen.  They  are  absolutely 
compelled  to  confine  themselves  to  what  is  merely  necessary  to  support  life,  for  any  thing 
beyond  from  hand  to  mouth  must  inevitably  fall  a  prey  to  the  lurking  vagrants,  who,  far 
worse  than  a  gang  of  gypsies,  are  hovering  around  seeking  literally  what  they  may  de 
vour.  And  this  state  of  things  is  not  confined  to  any  section  alone ;  it  extends  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree  wherever  this  portion  of  the  population  is  permanently  located." 

It  might  be  a  profitable  calculation  to  ascertain  what  will  be  the  de 
preciation  of  property  in  Ohio,  if  the  numberless  itinerant  blacks  from  the 
South  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  State.  The  House  will  remember  the 
ineffectual  efforts  of  Gerrit  Smith  to  make  a  black  agricultural  colony  in 
New  York.  He  was  obliged  to  confess  that  u  the  mass  of  them  rot  both 
physically  and  morally."  I  could  produce  similar  evidence  from  the  New 
York  u  Tribune,"  but  the  strength  of  the  statement  would  not  be  thus  in 
creased. 

I  lay  down  the  proposition  that  the  white  and  black  races  thrive  best 
apart ;  that  a  commingling  of  these  races  is  a  detriment  to  both  ;  that  it 
does  not  elevate  the  black,  and  it  only  depresses  the  white  ;  that  the  his- 


CIVIL   WAE.  249 

tory  of  this  continent,  especially  in  Hispano- America,  shows  that  stable 
civil  order  and  government  are  impossible  with  such  a  population.  In 
Peru  their  commingling  has  led  to  the  decay  and  degradation  of  their  prog 
eny.  Dr.  Tschudi,  in  his  travels  in  Peru,  enumerates  some  dozen  crosses 
of  the  negro,  Indian,  and  white,  with  their  various  and  vicious  products. 
The  character  of  these  mixed  races  is  that  of  brutality,  cowardice,  and 
crime,  which  has  no  parallel  in  any  age  or  land.  If  you  permit  the  dom 
inant  and  subjugated  races  to  remain  upon  the  same  soil,  and  grant  them 
any  approach  to  social  and  political  equality,  amalgamation  more  or  less 
is  inevitable.  It  has  invariably  followed  this  blending  of  people,  however 
opposite  the  original  stocks.  In  illustration,  let  me  quote  the  remark  of 
a  distinguished  divine,  Dr.  McGill : 

"  Look  at  Mexico,  where  the  proud  Castilian,  the  subjugated  Indian,  and  the  barbar 
ous  African  slave,  were  all  made  free  and  equal  just  about  one  generation  or  thirty-two 
years  ago,  by  a  single  decree,  to  meet  what  was  considered  '  a  military  necessity.'  More 
than,  half  of  the  whole  population  is  already  mixed-blooded ;  and  just  as  amalgamation 
advances,  degradation  deepens  ;  anarchy  prevails  ;  laws,  constitutions,  and  the  ballot-box 
are  a  mockery ;  wave  after  wave  of  military  despotism  has  left  that  Republic,  of  more 
than  eight  millions  of  souls,  one  of  the  fairest  regions  under  heaven  for  the  acquisition  of 
wealth  and  glory,  without  money,  without  credit,  without  commerce,  without  union,»with- 
out  religion,  until  at  length  the  ambition  of  Spain  herself  seeks  to  remand  the  abject 
people  to  their  old  repudiated  thraldom." 

Is  this  the  fate  to  be  commended  to  the  Anglo-Saxon-Celtic  population 
of  the  United  States?  Tell  me  not  that  this  amalgamation  will  not  go  on 
in  the  North.  What  mean  the  mulattoes  in  the  North,  far  exceeding,  as 
the  census  of  1850  shows,  the  mulattoes  of  the  South?  There  are  more 
free  mulattoes  than  there  are  free  blacks  in  the  free  States.  In  Ohio 
there  are  seven  mulatto  children  for  one  in  Virginia,  according  to  the 
negro  population ;  and  in  Indiana  and  Illinois  there  are  five  for  one  in 
Tennessee  and  Georgia  !  As  the  white  people  of  the  North  do  not  marry 
blacks,  these  mulattoes  must  have  been  born  out  of  wedlock.  While,  then, 
there  are  more  mulattoes  in  the  free  States  than  blacks ;  in  the  South,  on 
the  contrary,  there  is  only  one  mulatto  to  twelve  blacks  !  How  does  this 
occur  ?  I  leave  it  to  my  colleague  from  the  Portage  district  [Mr.  EDGER- 
TON],  who  gave  us  his  opinions,  in  a  pert  way,  about  the  Democratic  ad 
dress.  It  is  recorded  that  in  his  county  a  white  woman  of  Akron  sued 
out  a  habeas  corpus  (for  the  writ  runs  there  yet,  at  least  where  there  is 
color  of  right)  to  take  a  mulatto  baby  from  a  Mrs.  Jones,  a  negro  woman, 
under  whose  care  it  had  been  placed  by  its  white  mother,  and  who  had 
become  attached  to  the  pickaninny.  In  the  course  of  the  discussion  Mrs. 
J.  told  the  white  woman  that  she  thought  "  if  the  white  folks  were  mean 
enough  to  have  nigger  babies,  they  ought  to  be  willing  to  let  colored  peo 
ple  bring  them  up."  [Laughter.]  So  the  judge  decided.  These  little 
straws  account* for  the  preponderance  of  mulattoes  North. 

The  mixture  tends  to  deteriorate  both  races.  Physiology  has  called 
our  attention  to  the  results  of  such  connections.  These  results  show  dif 
ferences  in  stature  and  strength,  depending  on  the  parentage,  with  a 
corresponding  difference  in  the  moral  character,  mental  capacity,  and 
worth  of  labor.  The  mulatto  is  not  long-lived.  It  is  a  fact  that  no  in 
surance  company  will  insure  their  lives.  In  New  England  there  is  one 
blind  negro  for  every  807,  while  at  the  South  there  is  one  for  every 


250  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

2,635.  In  New  England  there  is  one  insane  negro  for  every  980,  and 
in  the  South  one  for  3,080.  If  they  were  the  only  insane  persons  there,  I 
would  not  complain.  They  catch  it  there  from  the  whites.  [Laughter.] 
It  is  neither  philanthropic  nor  congenial  to  send  the  negro  to  the  North, 
where  he  wilts,  when  in  the  congenial  South  he  increases  in  numbers  even 
in  slavery !  Our  statistician  (Mansfield,  Ohio  Statistics,  1861)  p.  41, 
boasts  that  Ohio  has  men  of  greater  height,  by  actual  measurement,  than 
England,  Belgium,  or  Scotland,  and  in  breadth  of  chest  nearly  equal  to 
that  of  Scotland,  and  above  all  others.  I  do  not  offer  myself  as  a  speci 
men.  [Laughter.]  But  how  long  before  the  manly,  warlike  people  of 
Ohio,  of  fair  hair  and  blue  eyes,  in  a  large  preponderance,  would,  in  spite 
of  Bibles  and  morals,  degenerate  under  the  wholesale  emancipation  and 
immigration  favored  by  my  colleague  ?  The  free  negroes  will  become 
equal,  or  will  continue  unequal  to  the  whites.  Equality  is  a  condition 
which  is  self-protective,  wanting  nothing,  asking  nothing,  able  to  take  care 
of  itself.  It  is  an  absurdity  to  say  that  two  races  so  dissimilar  as  black 
and  white,  of  different  origin,  of  unequal  capacity,  can  succeed  in  the 
same  society  when  placed  in  competition.  There  is  no  such  example  in 
history  of  the  success  of  two  separate  races  under  such  circumstances. 
Less  than  sixty  years  ago  Ohio  had  thousands  of  an  Indian  population. 
She  has  now  but  thirty  red  men  in  her  borders.  The  negro,  with  a  dif 
ference  of  color  indelible,  has  been  freed  under  every  variety  of  circum 
stances  ;  but  his  freedom  has  too  often  been  nominal.  Prejudice  stronger 
than  all  principles,  though  not  always  stronger  than  lust,  has  imperatively 
separated  the  whites  from  the  blacks.  In  the  school-house,  the  church,  or 
the  hospital,  the  black  man  must  not  seat  himself  beside  the  white ;  even 
in  death  and  at  the  cemetery  the  line  of  distinction  is  drawn.  To  abolish 
slavery  the  North  must  go  still  further,  and  forget  that  fatal  prejudice  of 
race  which  governs  it,  and  which  makes  emancipation  so  illusory.  To 
give  men  their  liberty,  to  open  to  them  the  gates  of  the  city,  and  then  say, 
"  There,  you  shall  live  among  yourselves,  you  shall  marry  among  your 
selves,  you  shall  form  a  separate  society  in  society,"  is  to  create  a  cursed 
caste  and  replace  slaves  by  pariahs.  Again,  it  is  neither  convenient  nor 
advantageous  to  the  State  of  Ohio  to  have  this  influx  of  blacks.  It  may 
be  abstractly  wrong  to  debar  them  from  our  State ;  but  some  one  has 
wisely  said,  that  "  the  abstract  principles  of  right  and  wrong  we  know, 
but  not  the  processes  nor  the  duration  of  their  working  out  in  history. 
All  the  white  handkerchiefs  in  Exeter  Hall  will  not  force  the  general  Con 
gress  of  Nations  to  decide  questions  otherwise  than  by  the  laws  of  con 
venience  and  advantage."  Were  there  no  prejudices  or  instincts  against 
the  color  or  race  in  our  midst,  a  true  State  policy  would  forbid  such  a 
horde  of  Africans  as  emancipation  would  send  to  Ohio.  Ohio  has  a  larger 
circuit  of  slave  territory  abutting  on  her  border,  than  any  other  Northern 
State.  The  Ohio  River  runs  over  500  miles  along  our  border,  dividing  us 
from  Kentucky  and  Virginia.  Illinois  and  Indiana  forbid  all  negroes 
from  other  States.  Since  1850  Iowa  and  Wisconsin  have  had  the  same 
policy.  Is  Ohio  to  be  the  only  asylum  for  the  slaves  of  Virginia  and 
Kentucky  and  the  other  States  south?  Suppose  these  schemes  of  eman 
cipation  succeed ;  or  suppose  they  do  not,  and  the  emancipation  incident 
to  the  war  goes  on,  what  proportion  of  the  slaves  of  the  South  will  cross 


CIVIL   WAK.  251 

into  Ohio  ?  They  will  not  go  to  Canada,  not  now.  They  will  move  into 
lower  Ohio,  with  the  consuming  power  of  the  army  worm.  By  the  cen 
sus,  in  Virginia  and  Kentucky  alone,  the  colored  people  number  790,102  ! 
How  many  of  these  blacks  would  come  to  Ohio  ? 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  laws  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  other  Western 
States,  the  slaves  of  the  Mississippi  valley  will,  if  freed,  seek  the  North 
west.  They  will  slip  through  into  Illinois,  Iowa,  Kansas,  and  Indiana. 
The  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  JULIAN],  the  other  day,  said  that  in 
his  part  of  the  State  the  law  was  a  dead  letter.  He  is  no  doubt  partially 
correct.  In  the  past  ten  years  the  ratio  of  increase  of  free  colored  people 
in  the  United  States  has  been  10-97  per  cent.,  that  of  the  slaves  23*38  per 
cent.,  and  that  of  the  whites  38' 12  per  cent.  In  California  the  negroes 
have  increased  296' 67  per  cent,  compared  to  the  white  increase  of  310*84 
per  cent.  There  are  no  laws  of  prohibition  in  California  ;  while  in  Oregon, 
where  such  laws  exist,  the  whole  ratio  of  increase  is  299-96  percent,  com 
pared  with  a  loss  of  41*54  per  cent,  of  blacks  !  In  other  States  there  is 
this  ratio:  Illinois,  white  increase  of  101'49,  black  only  30*04 ;  Iowa, 
white  increase  251*22,  black  increase  207*21  ;  Indiana,  white  increase 
37*14,  black  loss  3*49  ;  Wisconsin,  white  increase  154*10,  black  133*22. 
In  these  States  the  law  forbids  blacks  ;  but  in  spite  of  it  they  get  in,  but 
not  to  that  extent  which  they  do  in  Ohio  and  Michigan,  where  such 
laws  do  not  exist.  In  the  latter  State  the  white  increase  is  87*89  per 
cent.,  the  black  is  double,  viz. :  164*15  !  It  will  be  perceived  by  an  exam 
ination  of  the  census,  that  it  is  in  the  Northwest  that  the  black  race  is 
increasing ;  while  in  other  States  further  East  and  North  they  do  not  in 
crease  in  the  same  ratio.  It  is  the  Northwest  which  will  be  Africanized 
by  the  schemes  here  proposed.  The  slaves  in  the  Mississippi  valley  alone, 
in  the  States  of  Arkansas,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  and 
Tennessee,  number  1,499,079.  This  does  not  include  the  free  blacks, 
who  would  be  compelled  to  share  the  exodus.  Then  Kansas,  Nebraska, 
Iowa,  Minnesota,  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio, 
would  be  their  asylum  ;  but  as  the  States  west  of  the  Ohio  are  in  advance 
of  us  in  preventing  this  vicious  immigration,  Ohio,  under  the  welcome  of 
my  colleague  and  his  friends,  would  have  more  than  her  fair  quota.  Tem 
porizing  politicians  cannot  blink  this  question.  While  they  advocate 
emancipation,  some  of  them  present  an  alternative — colonization.  If 
more  negroes  are  to  be  freed,  and  my  State  is  to  be  their  asylum,  I  am  of 
Jefferson's  opinion,  that  their  freedom  ought  to  be  accompanied  with  emi 
gration  to  some  other  land,  compulsory  if  necessary.  But  Mr.  Greeley 
and  others  do  not  advocate  colonization  to  mitigate  abolition.  The  fact 
that  many  who  honestly  contemplate  abolition  are  willing  to  lay  a  tax  of 
thousands  of  millions  to  colonize,  is  a  confession  that  they  believe  that 
free  negroes  cannot  exist  in  the  country  without  its  ruin. 

It  has  been  said  that  we  ought  to  free  the  African,  even  though  we 
build  a  bridge  of  gold  over  the  chasm  from  slavery  to  freedom  !  It  will 
prove  a  Bridge  of  Sighs  to  both  black  and  white.  Its  piers  and  arches 
are  to  be  built  out  of  the  moil  and  toil  of  American  labor.  But  to  its 
cost :  I  have  some  data  on  which  to  calculate.  In  1858  I  voted  (ac 
cording  to  an  old  law  existing  since  the  time  of  Mr.  Monroe)  money  to 
send  back  slaves  taken  on  board  the  slave  ship  •'  Echo,"  on  the  21st  of 


252  ETGHT   TEARS   IN   CONGRESS.     » 

August,  1858.  That  law  requires  all  such  slaves  to  be  taken  back  to 
Africa,  and  supported  there  for  one  year  on  the  coast.  This  is  a  humane 
law,  but  an  expensive  one.  By  a  contract  made  between  the  Colonization 
Society  and  Mr.  Buchanan  (see Ex.  Doc.,  2d  Sess.  35tfi  Cong.,  vol.  2,  pt.  1), 
the  Government  agreed  to  pay  $45,000,  or  $150  apiece,  for  the  transpor 
tation  and  support  of  the  300  Africans  one  year.  It  did  not  include  buy 
ing  lands  for  them.  There  was  no  expense  for  compensation  to  slave 
owners.  Now,  if  the  slaves  of  all  the  South  are  to  be  paid  for  at  the  rate 
of  $300  apiece — the  amount  paid  here  in  the  District — and  land  is  to  be 
bought  beside,  you  may  approximate  to  the  result  of  this  enormous  Uto 
pian  scheme.  Mr.  Goodhue,  a  gentleman  who  is  connected  with  the 
Government,  and  a  statistician,  makes  this  estimate  : 

"By  the  census  of  last  year,  there  were  3,952,801  slaves  in  the  United  States  and  ter 
ritories.  I  have  already  shown  that  464,441,  which  belonged  to  the  border  States,  would 
be  worth,  at  $300  each,  $136,332,300.  There  remain  to  be  disposed  of,  therefore,  3,498,360 
slaves  embraced  in  the  country  subject  to  the  rebels,  but  including,  of  course,  large  num 
bers  belonging  to  friends  of  the  Union,  who  have  been  constrained  into  obedience  to  the 
rebel  authorities  against  their  wills.  At  the  rate  of  $300,  the  slaves  in  the  rebel  States 
would  be  worth  $1,049,508,000 ;  and  adding  the  cost  of  compensation  to  the  border 
States,  at  the  same  rate,  the  aggregate  expense  of  emancipation  would  be  $1,185,840,300. 
Or,  for  the  convenience  of  round  numbers,  the  cost  of  emancipation  would  be,  at  $300 
per  head,  twelve  hundred  million  dollars  ($1,200,000,000)." 

Add  to  this  $1,200,000,000  the  cost  of  transportation  and  mainten 
ance  for  a  year,  at  $150  per  negro,  and  you  have  $1,800,000,000.  Add 
further,  for  the  price  of  the  soil  to  be  bought  for  them,  say  ten  millions  ; 
and  the  cost  of  starting  them  in  a  strange  land,  without  roads,  houses, 
teachers,  and  leaders,  ten  more ;  and  you  may  approach  the  stupendous 
result.  This  is  no  violence  of  mine  upon  arithmetic.  This  is  the  cool 
calculation  of  men  eager  to  carry  out,  at  small  cost,  their  schemes.  I 
give  credit  to  the  motive  which  prompts  colonization.  But  where  are 
these  enormous  sums  to  come  from  ?  "  Oh,  the  war  expenses  are  as  much, 
and  ought  to  pay  it ;"  or,  as  Sir  Boyle  Roche  would  say,  "  every  man 
ought  to  give  his  last  guinea  to  protect  the  remainder."  Are  not  the  war 
expenses  already  run  up  to  such  a  sum  that  men  flounder  in  their  calcu 
lation  of  them?  But,  it  is  said,  the  war  expenses  are  not  yet  done,  and 
by  this  scheme  we  may  save  the  remainder.  I  would  like  to  think  so. 
Such  schemes  of  emancipation  will  only  prolong  the  war  and  add  to  its 
expenses.  This  enormous  tax  is  to  be  paid,  it  is  said,  in  thirty-seven 
years,  at  an  annual  tax  of  $150,000,000  !  We  are  to  use  our  credit  by 
bonds,  and  thus  establish  a  national  debt.  Great  as  our  resources  are, 
this  burden  is  too  enormous.  It  leaves  no  hope.  It  creates  despair.  Ask 
the  question  of  the  people  :  "  Can  you  meet  these  liabilities  in  addition  to 
the  war  debt,  now  estimated  by  Senator  SIMMONS,  at  the  end  of  July, 
1862,  at  $555,000,000,  and  to  be  doubled  before  the  war  is  over,  suppos 
ing  that  it  will  end  in  a  year?  " 

Such  a  scheme  even  destroys  a  large  portion  of  the  means  to  pay  for 
itself.  The  labor  of  the  negroes  after  they  are  freed  and  colonized  is 
nothing,  worse  than  nothing.  It  is  a  loss  to  the  country  of  just  what  it 
will  hike  in  time  and  trouble  to  replace  it  by  other  labor  equally  good.  It 
is  a  loss  to  the  country  of  the  labor  and  the  laborers  themselves,  estimated 
at  $600,000,000. 


CIVIL   WAR.  253 

Then  we  have  the  following  results  : 

Cost  of  compensation  to  owners  of  slaves $1,200,000,000 

Cost  of  deportation  and  maintenance  one  year 600,000,000 

Cost  of  land  to  be  purchased,  bridges,  houses,  roads,  &c 20,000,000 

Loss  of  the  labor  and  laborers  to  the  country  and  to  the  masters  before 

a  new  supply  of  labor  can  be  had 600,000,000 

Debt  already,  according  to  Secretary  Chase's  last  report 491,445,984 

War  debt  additional  by  1863,  according  to  Senator  Simmons 500,000,000 


$3,411,445,984 

This  sum  almost  equals  the  national  debt  of  Great  Britain,  which,  as 
the  accumulation  of  centuries,  amounts  to  £757,486,997,  or  about  $3,- 
787,000,000  !  Here  is  a  bridge  of  gold  for  the  African  exodus  !  Ohio 
builds  one  span  of  one-tenth,  to  cost  $34,114,459  ;  my  district  pays  one- 
twentieth  of  that,  or  $1,705,722.  But  how  much  of  the  accumulations 
of  our  people  will  this  sum  take  ?  Secretary  Chase  tells  us  that,  accord 
ing  to  the  census  of  1860,  the  real  and  personal  property  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States  is  $16,102,924,116  !  Hence  one-fifth  of  all  we  have 
would  scarcely  meet  this  enormous  liability !  In  the  name  of  economy, 
sense,  and  humanity,  may  not  the  people  be  tempted  to  repudiate  this  pro 
digious  expenditure  ?  The  men  who  levy  it,  sir,  are  running  a  desperate 
hazard.  Where,  by  the  tax  to  put  it  down,  secession  has  placed  only 
yokes  of  wood  on  the  people,  which  they  will  cheerfully  bear,  this 
scheme  makes  yokes  of  iron !  Think  you  the  authors  of  so  grand  a 
scheme  can  escape  the  vengeance  of  the  people  by  resignation  or  exile  ? 
Theirs  will  be  a  doom  worse  than  that  of  the  Gracchi  or  Robespierre  ! 

But  these  dreamers  do  not  intend  to  buy  and  colonize.  Their  ethics, 
like  their  speeches,  are  cribbed^  from  the  pharisaical  spoutings  of  Exeter 
Hall.  The  House  has  voted  down  the  project  of  colonization  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Missouri  [Mr.  BLAIR].  They  will  not  so  outrage 
human  nature — not  they.  .  What !  says  Wendell  Phillips,  export  the  four 
millions  which  are  the  fulcrum  of  the  lever  by  which  the  nation  is  to  be 
restored !  Oh,  no.  Is  not  this  the  land  of  their  birth?  Even  the  colo 
nization  members  do  not  propose  coercion.  What  then? 

It  is  proposed  to  free  all,  and  leave  chance  to  distribute  them  among 
the  people.  Chance,  sir,  is  a  poor  economist,  and  a  worse  ruler.  Let  us 
consider  the  effect  of  this  proposition.  A  senator  from  Vermont  [Mr. 
COLLAMER]  fixed  the  proportion  of  this  distribution  at  one  negro  to  every 
five  or  six  whites.  He  was  right.  By  the  census  of  1860,  there  are  in 
the  United  States  27.008,081  whites  and  3,999,535  slaves.  If  the  slaves 
were  distributed  equally  north  and  south,  this  would  make  one  negro  to 
every  seven  whites ;  but  if  all  are  driven  north  by  social  convulsion,  as 
shown  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  MALLORY],  it  would  make 
more  than  one  black  for  every  five  white  persons.  But  we  know  that  the 
African  will  not  go  to  New  England,  at  least  in  such  numbers  as  to  other 
States.  He  does  not  thrive  there.  In  Boston  the  city  register  shows  that 
for  the  last  five  years  there  were  134  births  to  376  deaths  among  the  col 
ored  people.  If  Ohio  were  open,  as  my  colleague  advocates,  we  would 
have  at  least  twice  as  many  negroes  flock  into  that  State  as  to  the  rest  of 
the  North,  and  twice  as  many  in  central  and  southern  Ohio  as  in  northern 
Ohio ;  or  one  negro  for  every  three  white  persons  in  the  State,  and  per- 


254  EIGHT   YEARS    EN    CONGRESS. 

haps  twice  that  ratio  in  southern  and  central  Ohio.  Take  Massachusetts 
as  the  fair  average  of  the  North.  There,  every  inducement  is  offered  to 
his  immigration.  He  is  made  a  voter  ;  he  is  admitted  to  the  bar  ;  he  is 
even  made  better  than  a  white  man  in  suffrage,  provided  the  white  man 
comes  from  Germany  or  Ireland.  Yet,  in  a  population  of  1,231,065,  the 
blacks  number  only  9,454,  or  one  black  to  130  of  the  population ;  while 
in  Ohio,  with  not  double  the  population,  there  is  one  black  to  63  of  the 
population.  The  increase  of  blacks  in  Ohio  is  43*30  per  cent.,  while  in 
Massachusetts  it  is  only  23*96  per  cent.  So  that  I  am  justified,  not  alone 
by  the  census,  but  most  by  the  geographical  position  and  nearness  of  Ohio 
to  the  South  and  the  extent  of  its  slave  State  border,  in  inferring  that  she 
would  receive  more  than  double  the  number  assigned  to  the  States  north 
by  Mr.  Collamer's  apportionment.  What,  then,  would  be  the  result? 
Ohio  has  2,303,374  white  people.  She  would  then  have  a  ratio  of  one 
black  to  every  three  persons,  an  addition  of  767,791  to  her  black  popula 
tion  !  My  district,  composed  of  Franklin,  Licking,  and  Pickaway  Coun 
ties,  where  negroes  seem  to  congregate  more  than  among  their  professed 
friends  in  northern  Ohio,  would  have  scattered  among  its  110,941  persons, 
blacks  to  the  number  of  36,980  !  This  is  nearly  equal  to  the  whole 
population  of  Licking  County  !  They  would  be  distributed  as  follows : 
Licking,  12,370  ;  Franklin,  16,787  ;  and  Pickaway,  7,823. 

But  even  this  does  not  do  justice  to  the  inexorable  figures,  for  my  dis 
trict  is  peculiarly  blessed  with  negro  population.  Whether  it  is  because 
the  people  are  more  generous  in  their  treatment  of  the  blacks  ;  whether 
Kentucky  and  Virginia  families  who  settled  in  it  are  more  numerous ; 
or  whatever  is  the  cause,  still  it  is  true,  by  the  census  of  1860,  that 
with  a  population  in  my  district  of  about  one-twentieth  of  the  whole 
population  of  the  State,  it  has  one-fourteenth  of  its  blacks,  or  2,660  out 
of  36,673. 

One  would  suppose  that  in  the  Western  Reserve,  where  the  profession 
of  philanthropy  is  ever  arising  in  prayer,  in  speech,  and  in  print,  where 
for  years  they  cultivated  no  civil  discipline  which  interfered  with  their 
notions  of  slavery,  there  would  be  throngs  of  blacks.  Is  it  so  ?  Thou 
iron-tougued  census,  speak  !  In  the  ten  counties  of  the  Western  Reserve 
there  are  but  1,854  blacks,  a  few  more  than  in  one  county  of  my  district ! 
Why  they  especially  avoid  Ashtabula,  where  there  are  only  twenty-five 
negroes,  I  cannot  say.  Is  it  the  prodigal  profession  and  scant  practice  of 
humanity  ?  [Laughter.]  Or  has  Mr.  Giddings,  with  a  view  to  protect 
property  and  keep  up  its  price,  coaxed  them  into  Canada,  where  happily 
he  is  now  domiciled  ?  And  there  is  Geauga,  with  not  as  many  negroes 
as  Fulton  County  has  Indians !  What  a  commentary  on  representative 
fidelity  is  here  !  The  member  from  Ashtabula,  Mahoning,  and  Trumbull 
[Mr.  HUTCHINS]  speaks  for  166  negroes ;  but  from  his  piteous  ado,  one 
would  suppose  that  he  represented  at  least  as  many  Africans  as  the  King 
of  Dahomey.  [Laughter.]  And  there  is  my  smiling  colleague  from  the 
northwest  [Mr.  ASHLEY],  whose  rotund  form  is  ready  to  become  like 
Niobe — all  tears — by  his  grief  for  the  poor  negro  [laughter]  ;  whose 
gushes  of  eloquence  in  their  behalf  remind  one  of  the  Arab  lyrics  in  praise 
of  the  dark  maidens  of  Abyssinia  when  they  sung : 


CIVIL  WAR.  255 

"  Oh  !  the  black  amber,  the  black  amber  !     Its  perfume  by  far 
Is  sweeter  than  all  else  on  earth  or  in  star  ; 
The  lotus  of  Nile,  the  rose  of  Cashmere, 
My  senses  enthrall,  only  when  thou  art  not  here."     [Great  laughter.] 

Yet,  from  the  whole  eleven  counties  of  his  district,  he  cannot  count  as 
many  negroes  by  half  as  live  in  my  own  county.  I  am  not  particularly 
proud  of  representing  a  greater  number  of  Africans  than  my  colleagues. 
I  think,  so  far  as  the  chattering  goes  about  their  inalienable  rights  and 
everlasting  wrongs,  I  am  entirely  unsuited  to  represent  them  ;  yet  I  hope 
that  in  actual  kindness  to  them  I  do  represent  the  white  people  of  my 
district,  whose  practical  benevolence  has  attracted  to  that  portion  of  the 
State  an  undue  share.  What  I  fear  is,  and  what  I  deduce  is,  that  this 
disproportionate  share  will  be  continued  when  the  bills  voted  for  by  my 
colleagues  are  law,  and  the  black  exodus  has  begun. 

I  have  the  honor,  as  it  is  fondly  believed  by  some,  to  be  a  prospective 
constituent  of  either  my  friend  from  the  Clark  district  [Mr.  SHELLABAR- 
GER],  or  the  honored  representative  of  the  Madison  district  [Mr.  HARRI 
SON],  with  whose  votes  I  so  often  concur.  The  Legislature  of  Ohio  has 
made  for  my  especial  contemplation  a  new  district,  composed  of  the  coun 
ties  of  Clark,  Madison,  Franklin,  and  Greene.  If  my  two  friends,  who 
do  not  agree  well  in  their  votes,  will  consent  to  make  the  race  next  fall,  I 
will,  perhaps,  edge  in  a  conservative  word  for  the  general  welfare.  I 
commend  to  them  this  question  I  am  discussing.  This  new  district,  sir, 
is  rich  in  colored  materials.  It  was  the  select  asylum  for  the  blacks  in 
their  northern  movement.  Greene  County,  to  which  I  have  referred  for  the 
character  of  its  African  damsels,  is  a  second  Paradise  of  free  negroes.  It  has 
1,475  blacks.  The  benevolence  of  Horace  Mann  at  Antioch  College  led 
the  blacks  to  believe  that  here  they  would  repose  in  the  green  pastures  as 
contentedly  as  their  brethren  bask  in  the  rays  of  a  Congo  sun.  They 
were  to  be  elevated  without  effort  to  an  equality  with  the  white  race ; 
and  here  they  gathered  to  witness  the  miracle.  You  may  wash  them 
year  after  year,  with  your  philanthropic  soap  and  water,  you  will  not  turn 
them  white,  though  they  may  become  gray.  In  this  new  district  there  are 
3,821  negroes  to  111,052  whites.  Here  are  twice  as  many  negroes  as  in 
the  whole  Western  Reserve !  One  negro  to  every  three  white  persons 
would  give  37,017  !  A  very  pretty  mosaic  !  A  sweet  and  fragrant  nest ! 
And  this  is  the  Afric's  coral  strand,  to  which  my  missionary  labors  are  to 
be  directed !  Why,  here  are  one-tenth  of  the  negroes  of  Ohio  in  this  dis 
trict,  with  only  one-twentieth  of  the  population  of  the  State  !  So  that  in 
this  district,  if  the  ratio  continued,  we  should  have  twice  as  many  as  our 
fair  share  (at  one  negro  to  three  of  the  white  population),  or  some  eighty 
thousand  negroes ! 

How  will  this  immigration  of  the  blacks  affect  labor  in  Ohio  and  in 
the  North  ?  First,  directly,  it  effects  our  labor,  as  all  unproducing  classes 
detract  from  the  prosperity  of  a  community.  Ohio  is  an  agricultural 
State.  Negroes  will  not  farm.  They  prefer  to  laze  or  serve  around 
towns  and  cities.  This  is  evident  from  the  census  of  Cincinnati,  Cleve 
land,  Toledo,  Dayton,  Columbus,  Zanesville,  and  Chillicothe,  where  more 
than  three-fourths  of  the  blacks  of  Ohio  are  to  be  found.  But  is  it  said 
that  the  plantation  hands,  when  free,  will  work  the  lands?  Such  is  not 


256  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

the  experience  on  the  Carolina  coast.  A  writer  in  the  Boston  "  Journal," 
from  Port  Royal,  on  the  14th  of  May,  1862,  estimates  that  there  are 
10,000  contrabands  on  the  islands.  They  have  planted  some  corn,  pota 
toes,  and  cotton,  under  the  Government  direction.  This  writer  says  : 

"  It  is  difficult  to  make  the  negroes  work,  or  induce  them  to  (if  that  sounds  better 
North),  as  they  find  something  to  eat  from  Massa  Lincoln,  and  seem  to  feel  they  are  not 
4  free  .niggers '  if  they  work.  So  they  often  take  a  day  or  several  days  to  themselves, 
when  their  services  are  perhaps  most  needed,  and  go  to  Hilton  Head  or  Beaufort.  For 
instance,  some  ground  had  been  prepared  for  ploughing  and  planting,  but  just  as  they 
were  needed  the  few  men  who  understood  that  part  went  off  for  two  days  without  the 
least  notice,  thus  delaying  the  planting,  which  was  even  then  late.  Until  some  method  is 
adopted  to  make  them  feel  the  necessity  of  work  for  their  own  good,  Government  will 
receive  but  little  benefit  comparatively." 

Will  they  do  any  better  North  ?  "We  know  what  they  have  done. 
There  are  exceptions.  I  speak  of  the  masses  of  blacks.  Have  they  done 
any  better  at  Fortress  Monroe,  or  even  here,  under  military  surveillance? 
Let  their  condition  answer.  Food  for  the  present  is  what  they  crave  ; 
and  when  that  is  had,  no  more  work  till  they  crave  again.  But  suppose 
they  do  work,  or  work  a  little,  or  a  part  of  them  work  well ;  what  then 
is  the  effect  upon  our  mechanics  and  laboring  men  ?  It  is  said  that  many 
of  them  make  good  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  &c.,  and  especially  good  ser 
vants.  If  that  be  so,  there  arc  white  laborers  North  whose  sweat  is  to  be 
coined  into  taxes  to  ransom  these  negroes  ;  and  the  first  effect  of  the  ran 
som  is  to  take  the  bread  and  meat  from  the  families  of  white  laborers.  If 
the  wages  of  white  labor  are  reduced,  they  will  ask  the  cause.  That 
cause  will  be  found  in  the  delusive  devices  of  members  of  Congress.  The 
helps  of  German  and  Irish  descent,  the  workmen  and  mechanics  in  the 
shop  and  field,  will  find  some,  if  not  all,  of  these  negroes,  bought  by  their 
toil,  competing  with  them  at  every  turn.  Labor  will  then  go  down  to  a 
song.  It  will  be  degraded  by  such  association.  Our  soldiers,  when  they 
return,  100,000  strong,  to  their  Ohio  homes,  will  find  these  negroes,  or 
the  best  of  them,  filling  their  places,  felling  timber,  ploughing  ground, 
gathering  crops,  &c.  How  their  martial  laurels  will  brighten  when  they 
discover  the  result  of  their  services  !  Labor  that  now  ranges  at  from  $1 
to  $2  per  day,  will  fall  to  one-half.  Already,  in  this  District,  the  Govern 
ment  is  hiring  out  the  fugitives  at  from  $2  to  $8  per  month,  while  white 
men  are  begging  for  work.  Nor  is  the  labor  of  the  most  of  these  negroes 
desirable.  No  system  of  labor  is  so  unless  it  be  steady.  They  will  get 
their  week's  wages,  and  then  idle  the  next  week  away.  Many  will  be 
come  a  charge  and  a  nuisance  upon  the  public  charity  and  the  county 
poor  tax.  One  hundred  of  the  fifteen  hundred  negroes  of  Greene  County, 
as  we  have  seen,  were  drones  and  scamps.  So  in  Brown  County.  Ran 
dolph's  negroes,  taken  to  Mercer  County,  were  nuisances.  If  the  blacks 
are  distributed  into  the  country,  they  may  work  for  a  little  time  and  for  small 
wages,  and  work  well  for  a  time ;  but  when  work  grows  irksome,  and 
they  kk  become  too  lazy  to  play,"  they  will  steal.  Corn  and  chickens  dis 
appear  in  their  vicinage,  with  the  facility  of  shirts  from  the  hedges  where 
Fal staff  marched  his  tatterdemalions.  And  for  this  result  directly  to 
northern  labor,  what  compensation  is  there  to  the  southern  half  of  our 
country  by  their  removal  ?  Herein  lies  the  indirect  effect  of  their  immi 
gration  upon  northern  labor.  By  this  emancipation,  the  labor  system  of 


CIVIL   WAE.  257 

the  South  is  destroyed.  The  cotton,  which  brought  us  $200,000,000  per 
annum,  a  good  part  of  which  came  to  Ohio  to  purchase  pork,  corn,  flour, 
beef,  and  machinery,  where  is  it?  Gone.  What  of  the  cotton  fabric, 
almost  as  common  as  bread  among  the  laboring  classes?  With  4,000,- 
000  of  indolent  negroes,  its  production  is  destroyed,  and  the  ten  millions  of 
artisans  in  the  world  who  depend  on  it  for  employment,  and  the  hundred 
millions  who  depend  on  it  for  clothing,  will  find  the  fabric  advanced  a 
hundred  per  cent.  So  with  sugar,  and  other  productions  of  slave  labor. 
For  all  these  results,  labor  will  curse  the  jostling  elements  which  thus  dis 
turb  the  markets  of  the  world.  Another  indirect  effect  upon  the  labor  of 
the  North,  and  especially  of  Ohio,  is  that  the  markets  of  the  South  will  be 
closed,  not  by  blockade,  but  forever.  Our  prices  of  corn,  wheat,  pork, 
beef,  &c.,  will  be  reduced  by  a  contracted  market.  The  surplus  in  Ohio, 
the  past  year,  was,  of  grain  25,000,000  bushels,  of  hogs  1,000,000,  of 
cattle  300,000,  exports  from  the  State,  or  more  than  $50,000,000  worth  ; 
while  other  articles  of  export  were  worth  $50,000,000  more.  This  pro 
duction  is  above  that  which  Ohio  can  use.  If  our  market  is  restricted, 
who  suffers?  The  farmer.  If  he  suffers,  who  will  pay  the  taxes  in 
Ohio?  Prices  must  be  remunerative  or  agriculture  suffers.  If  agricul 
ture  suffers  in  Ohio,  every  man,  woman,  and  child  feels  it.  If  this  scheme 
for  Africanizing  the  State,  by  destroying  southern  labor,  succeeds,  no  fos 
tering  care  or  scientific  skill  can  make  up  the  loss  to  the  farmer.  Such 
schemes,  by  destroying  the  sources  of  labor,  destroy  themselves.  Yet 
these  dreamers  cling  to  their  notions  with  the  happy  impudence  of  Mun- 
chausen,  who  went  to  the  moon  for  the  silver  hatchet,  by  means  of  a 
Turkey  bean  which  grew  up  to  its  horns.  When  his  bean  was  dried  by 
the  heat,  he  twisted  a  rope  of  straw  by  which  to  descend,  fastening  one 
end  to  the  horns.  Alas !  like  many  similar  schemes,  it  was  too  short. 
But,  holding  fast  by  the  left  hand,  with  his  right  he  cut  the  long  and  use 
less  upper  part,  which,  when  tied  to  the  lower  end,  brought  him  safely  to 
the  earth !  Such  will  be  the  result  of  these  lunatic  experiments  upon  the 
labor  systems  of  the  country.  The  sooner  they  descend  from  the  moon 
with  their  rope  of  straw,  the  better.  Thus,  with  loss  to  the  South  and 
damage  to  the  North,  both  irreparable,  and  no  gain  to  either,  the  year 
of  negro  jubilee  is  to  be  ushered  into  existence. 

In  conclusion,  then,  if  the  negro  cannot  be  colonized  without  burdens 
intolerable,  and  plans  too  delusive;  if  he  cannot  be  freed  and  left  South 
without  destroying  its  labor,  and  without  his  extermination  ;  if  he  cannot 
come  North  without  becoming  an  outcast  and  without  ruin  to  Northern 
industry  and  society,  what  shall  be  done  ?  Where  shall  he  go  ?  He  an 
swers  for  himself.  The  paterfamilias  of  a  drove  of  negroes,  the  other 
day  in  the  Valley  of  Virginia,  was  asked,  "  Where  are  you  going  ?  "  "  Dun* 
no,  massa,  dun*  no  ;  gwine  somewhere,  I  reckon."  [Laughter.]  His 
friends  can  answer  very  little  better.  But  such  answer  is  not  statesman 
ship.  What  shall  be  done  ?  I  answer,  Representatives  !  that  our  duty  is 
written  in  our  oath  !  IT  is  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  ! 
Leave  to  the  States  their  own  institutions  where  that  instrument  leaves 
them,  keep  your  faith  to  the  Crittenden  resolutions,  be  rid  of  all  ambigu 
ous  schemes,  and  trust  under  God  for  the  revelation  of  His  will  concern 
ing  these  black  men  in  our  land,  and  the  overthrow  by  our  power  of  this 
17 


258  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGKESS. 

rebellion.  Have  you  no  faith  in  God,  who  writes  the  history  of  nations  ? 
Great  as  is  our  power,  wise  as  is  our  system  of  government,  brave  as  are 
our  soldiers,  unequalled  as  our  fleets  are  of  iron,  it  is  only  for  Him  to  breathe 
upon  us,  and  our  power  will  fade.  I  know  tliat  His  power  can  solve 
these  dark  problems  of  our  fate.  Let  us  do  our  duty  to  the  order  estab 
lished  by  our  fathers,  under  His  wise  inspiration,  and  all  may  be  well. 
In  this  night  of  our  gloom  my  faith  has  been  in  Him,  even  as  my  oath 
to  the  Constitution  which  He  inspired  is  made,  "  so  help  me  God ! " 
Cleaving  to  that,  I  can  see  the  dawn  of  hope  !  Leaving  it,  I  see  nothing 
but  perjury,  fraud,  and  a  darker  night  of  disaster.  In  our  Constitution 
alone,  under  God,  is  our  national  salvation  ! 

But  I  have  no  faith  in,  and  no  hope  of  this  Congress,  for  they  have 
no  faith  in  God  or  the  Constitution.  Greece  had  a  law  called  ypacfrrj  Trapa,- 
vofjLW,  whereby  any  man  was  tried  and  punished  in  a  common  court  like 
a  criminal,  for  any  law  which  had  passed  on  his  motion  in  the  assembly 
of  the  people,  if  that  law  appeared  unjust  or  prejudicial  to  the  public. 
If  there  were  such  a  law  here,  how  few  of  the  majority  of  this  House 
would  escape  the  dock  of  the  criminal  and  the  rope  of  the  gibbet.  The 
member  from  Illinois  [Mr.  LOVEJOY]  would  then  receive  the  beatitudes 
which  follow  suspended  animation.  [Laughter.]  But  what  of  the  mem 
ber  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  KELLEY]  ?  He  has  been  ever  ready,  in  his  de 
fence  of  black  men  and  black  character,  to  assail  personally  those  with 
whom  he  differed.  He  could  not  pass  by  my  humble  speech  as  to  Hayti 
without  some  sarcastic  flings  and  much  misrepresentation,  which  he  re 
fused  to  allow  me  to  answer.  He  did  not  like  my  style  of  description, 
and  wondered  why  there  was  no  laugh  at  my  humor  about  the  negro  in 
court  dress.  He  is  more  successful.  He  never  speaks  but  he  is  laughed 
at.  His  speeches  have  been  well  described  as  being  every  word  a  sepul 
chre,  every  sentence  a  tomb,  and  every  speech  a  graveyard.  [Laughter.] 
In  this  graveyard  he  thought  to  bury  me, 'as  he  had  buried  others.  But 
even  that  voice  of  his,  vox  et  praeterea  nihil,  which  may  be  likened  to  the 
"  cry  of  an  itinerant  bull,  in  pursuit  of  society,  moaning  upon  the  broad 
prairies  of  the  West"  [great  laughter],  would,  if  that  Grecian  law  existed, 
be  choked  forever.  He  would  then  find  his  melodramatic  performances 
close  before  the  fifth  act,  in  a  tragedy,  which  an  admiring  audience  would 
applaud  TO  the  echo  !  Faithless  to  their  own  resolves,  faithless  to  the  Presi 
dent's  message  and  proclamations,  faithless  to  their  pledges  to  the  army  and 
the  people,  faithless  to  the  memories  of  the  past  and  the  hopes  of  the  fu 
ture,  faithless  to  the  Constitution  and  to  the  God  of  their  oath,  these  mad 
dened  zealots  pursue  the  work  of  destruction.  A  few  short  months,  and 
even  the  blacks  of  America  will  curse  them  as  their  worst  enemy.  This 
Congress,  which  ought  to  be  engaged  in  holding  up  the  hands  of  the  Execu 
tive,  and  in  giving  aid  and  counsel  in  putting  down  this  armed  rebellion, 
has  striven  to  circumvent  the  plans  of  the  President,  by  its  immature 
and  vindictive  bills  of  confiscation.  It  has  been  coopering  away  at  the 
vessel,  hooping  it  around  with  infinite  pains,  by  emancipation,  while  its 
bottom,  like  the  tub  of  the  Danaides,  is  full  of  holes  and  can  hold  no  water. 
Weary  in  watching  its  mad  designs  of  revolution  and  its  crazy  crotchets 
of  black  freedom,  and  for  the  self-preservation  of  my  native  State  and 
the  North  from  the  black  immigration  with  which  it  is  threatened,  I  shall 


CIVIL   WAR.  259 

go  to  my  home  and  ask  the  ballot  to  speak  its  denunciation.  A  few 
months,  and  that  expression  will  be  had.  On  it  depends  the  fate  of  the 
Republic.  My  belief  is,  that  the  people  will  write  the  epitaph  of  this 
Congress,  nearly  as  Gladstone  wrote  that  of  the  Coalition  ministry  durmg 
the  Crimean  war  : 

Here  lies  the  ashes  of  the  XXXVII.  Congress ! 

It  found  the  United  States  in  a  war  of 

gigantic  proportions,  involving 

its  very  existence. 

It  was  content  to  wield  the  sceptre  of  Power 
and  accept  the  emoluments  of  office  ; 

and  used  them  to  overthrow 
the  political  and  social  system  of  the  country,  which 

it  was  sworn  to  protect. 

It  saw  the  fate  of  thirty-four  white  commonwealths  in  peril ; 
but  it  babbled  of  the 

NEGRO! 
It  saw  its  patriotic  generals  and  soldiers  in  the 

field,  under  the  old  flag. 
It  slandered  the  one,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  other, 

it  destroyed  his  means  of  labor. 

It  talked  of  Liberty  to  the  black,  and 

piled  burdens  of  taxation  on  white  people 

for  Utopian  schemes. 
The  people  launched  at  it  the  thunderbolt 

of  their  wrath  ; 

and  its  members  sought  to  avoid  punishment, 

by  creeping  into  dishonored 

political  graves 

Requiescat ! 


MEANING  OF  THE  ELECTIONS  OF  1862. 

CONSERVATISM  AND  RADICALISM — PERVERSION  OF  THE  WAR — ITS  PROLONGATION — DISMISSAL  OP 
GENERALS — IS  COMPROMISE   POSSIBLE  ?    IP  SO,  WHEN  ? — LAWS  OF  WAR — MAXIMS  OF  VATTEL 

— HOW    PEACE     MAY   BE    HAD ENGLISH   PERFIDY FRENCH    AND     FOREIGN     MEDIATION 

NATIONAL    CONVENTION. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  December  15,  1862. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  :  It  has  been  a  custom  in  all  civilized  countries 
and  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  all  free  countries,  for  the  administra 
tion  to  yield  to  the  popular  will  whenever  it  is  clearly  ascertained. 
In  England,  when  the  Ministry  are  voted  down,  they  surrender  their  port 
folios  to  the  Queen.  Even  in  parliament,  which  is  but  an  imperfect  rep 
resentative  of  the  British  people,  no  Minister,  however  popular,  can 
withstand  the  sentiment  of  the  Commons.  He  must  resign  or  rule  un^der 
the  scorn  of  the  nation.  In  1832,  even  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was  not 
"  iron  "  enough  to  resist  the  popular  cry  of  "  Reform."  In  1846,  when 
Cobden  and  Bright  on  the  hustings,  Villiers,  in  the  House,  and  Elliott  in 
song,  raised  the  cry  of  Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  and  cheap  bread  for  the 
people,  the  landed  aristocracy,  who  had  the  power,  crumbled  before  the 


260  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

power  of  the  popular  voice.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  greatest  statesman 
since  Chatham,  bowed  to  the  decree.  The  nation  yet  honors  him  for  this 
magnanimous  statesmanship.  Later,  during  the  Crimean  war,  its  gross 
mismanagement,  shown  up  by  an  untrammelled  press,  drove  an  incompe 
tent  Ministry  from  power,  by  a  vote  of  the  Commons.  In  Prussia,  in 
France,  and  even  in  Austria,  the  sovereign  and  his  advisers  do  not  fail  to 
conciliate  the  public  mind  by  some  graces  of  obedience.  But  here,  sir, 
in  this  boasted  free  country,  when  our  great  States  have  pronounced 
against  this  Congress,  and  against  its  emancipation  and  other  schemes, 
we  have  mockery,  defiance,  and  persistency  in  wrong  doing.  The  people 
have  raised  their  voice  against  irresponsible  arrests ;  this  House,  on  its 
first  day,  votes  down  my  resolutions,  drawn  in  the  language  of  every  Bill 
of  Rights  in  America,  and  refuses  inquiry  into  these  outrages  upon  the 
citizen.  The  people  have  condemned  that  worst  relic  of  the  worst  times 
of  French  tyranny,  the  lettres  de  cachet;  yet  this  House,  with  indecorous 
hurry,  lash  through  a  bill  of  indemnity,  which  is  to  confiscate  all  the  rights 
and  remedies  of  the  outraged  citizen — a  bill,  sir,  which,  if  pleaded  by  a 
minion  of  power,  the  Courts  would  laugh  to  scorn.  The  people  have  con 
demned  the  edict  of  emancipation — an  edict  which  Mr.  Seward,  on  the 
10th  of  March  last,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  declared  "  would  reinvig- 
orate  the  declining  insurrection  in  every  part  of  the  South  ;  "  yet  we  have 
the  Presidential  Message,  which  proposes  to  adhere  to  the  condemned 
proclamation  ;  and  in  addition  thereto  proposes  a  compensated  system  of 
emancipation,  running  to  the  end  of  the  century.  The  people  desired  the 
war  to  be  continued  on  one  line  of  policy,  declared  by  us  last  July  a  year, 
for  the  Constitution  and  the  Union ;  but  this  contumacious  assembly  are 
determined  to  force  it  from  that  line,  or  abandon  the  Union. 

My  colleague  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  spoke  the  other  day  for  the  majority 
here,  and  gloried  in  that  radicalism  which  would  "  reinvigorate  the  rebel 
lion."  I  think  the  Irish  orator  had  my  colleague  in  his  eye,  when  he 
spoke  of  the  "  universal  genius  of  emancipation."  He  glories  in  being  a 
radical  because  he  goes  to  the  root.  I  propose  to  tap  that  root  for  a  few 
moments.  His  speech  is  not  upon  a  new  theme,  nor  is  it  freshly  handled. 
Its  point  is  its  audacious  disregard  of  the  sentiment  of  his  own  State  and 
of  the  North.  He  is  wiser  than  the  "  elders  "  of  the  Republic,  whom  he 
stigmatizes :  for  they  never  found,  what  he  has  learned  from  other  and 
recent  sources,  that  Slavery  and  freedom  are  incompatible  in  our  system. 
He  pretends  that  the  real  cause  of  the  rebellion  lies  in  this  irreconcilable 
antagonism.  He  forgets  that  seventy-five  years  of  our  history  disprove 
his  fallacies.  He  urges  such  antagonism  for  military  reasons  ;  when  the 
truth  is,  his  party  got  power  by  propagating  this  very  heresy  of  hate. 
The  scheme  of  exterminating  slavery  as  a  war  measure  is  an  afterthought. 
He  claims  moreover  the  right  under  the  Constitution  to  free  all  the  slaves, 
because  slavery  is  incompatible  with  that  clause  which  guarantees  to  each 
State  a  republican  form  of  government.  He  grows  wiser  than  the  u  el 
ders,"  who  framed  the  Constitution,  and  who  lived  in  Slave  States  when  it 
was  made.  He  thinks  the  Congress  and  the  Executive  can  unmake  the 
State  governments  and  make  new  governments  for  the  South  when  sub 
jugated.  He  thus  becomes  as  much  of  a  Disunionist  and  traitor  as  Davis. 
My  colleague  reproves  the  President  for  hii  delusion,  because  the  Presi- 


CIVIL   WAR.  261 

dent  hopes  for  relief  by  compensated  emancipation  in  1900.  In  this,  the 
daring  radicalism  of  my  colleague  outstrips  even  that  of  the  Administra 
tion.  He  favors  a  "  Union  as  it  will  be,  when  slavery  is  eradicated,"  and 
that  makes  him  a  radical.  He  says  radicalism'' goes  to  the  root.  So  it 
does.  So  the  savants  whom  Gulliver  found  employed  the  hog  to  do 
ploughing,  to  save  the  wear  and  tear  of  honest  agriculture.  He  would 
have  us  root  out  slavery  or  die.  Indeed,  in  picturing  our  u  armies  pen 
etrating  the  territory  of  the  rebellion,  carrying  with  them  this  military 
order  of  freedom  inscribed  upon  their  banner,"  he  would  have  his  halt 
ing  friends,  like  the  President,  "  dare  "  more ;  he  quotes  the  language  of 
Mirabeau,  the  revolutionist,  urging  no  revolt — no  revolt — by  halves,  no 
timidity,  no  hesitation  from  a  sense  of  duty,  no  sacrifice  of  passion,  no 
half-way  indecision  in  treason  ;  and  he  exhorts  his  confederates  in  aboli 
tion  that  it  is  better  to  be  resolutely  bad  than  indecisively  honest !  This 
is  the  language  of  revolution,  and  the  spirit  of  Satan  as  Milton  pictures 
him  in  hell.  The  quotation  of  my  colleague  is  felicitous  ;  but  it  is  a  re 
lief  to  know  that  his  comrades  in  revolt  have  not  the  daring  of  Davis,  the 
manliness  of  Mirabeau,  or  the  intellect  of  Satan.  He  indulges  in  compar 
isons  between  this  radicalism,  which  he  espouses,  and  that  conservatism 
which  is  now  organized  under  the  Democratic  name.  The  word  conser 
vative  is  not  the  name  of  a  party.  It  is  an  element  now  dominant  among 
the  people.  It  represents  the  principle  of  repose  and  strength  ;  the  ideas 
of  order  and  law.  It  defends  the  Constitution.  It  would  restore  the 
Union.  When  the  gentleman  likens  it  to  the  Israelites  who  hankered  for 
the  slavery  of  Egypt ;  when  he  says  that  those  who  prefer  the  Union  as  it 
was,  are  like  the  Tories  of  the  Revolution ;  when  he  likens  them  to  the. 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  preferred  the  doctrines  of  the  elders,  he  per 
petrates  superficial  nonsense.  To  stigmatize  those  who  are  in  favor  of 
the  Union  of  Washington  as  like  the  Tories  whom  Washington  fought,  is 
worse  than  the  silliest  bathos  of  a  mediocre  poet,  whom  Horace  says  gods, 
men,  and  booksellers  despise.  To  liken  the  conservative  voice  just  ut 
tered  at  our  elections  to  the  lust  of  the  Israelites  for  the  fleshpots  of  Egypt, 
has  not  the  dignity  of  a  schoolgirl's  rhapsody.  The  simile  which  he  drew 
between  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  those  who  reverence  the  Consti 
tution  because  it  is  the  work  of  the  "  elders,"  smacks  of  a  supercilious 
egotism  which  it  is  idle  to  answer.  There  are  no  such  analogies  between 
the  parties  of  the  day.  No  comparisons  are  needed  to  show  the  differ 
ences  between  the  radicalism  which  uproots  to  destroy,  and  the  conserva 
tism  which  would  guard  to  save.  I  would  like  to  know  the  difference  in 
spirit  between  the  radicalism  of  secession,  which  contemned  the  constitu 
tional  majority  and  set  up  for  itself  on  slavery  principles,  and  the  radical 
ism  which  now  defies  the  people's  will  to  set  up  for  itself  on  anti-slavery 
ideas. 

This  radical  party  of  the  gentleman  has  been  in  power  651  days — 
since  the  4th  of  March,  1861,  to  the  present  time.  What  is  the  result? 
I  do  not  now  ask  who  has  caused  this  result ;  but  what  is  our  condition 
under  the  agents  selected  at  Chicago  by  a  sectional  organization,  acting 
with  those  of  similar  radical  views  in  the  South?  1st.  A  confederation 
of  thirty-three  States,  to  which  appurtenant  were  seven  Territories,  has 
been  torn  into  two  parts,  under  severed  and  belligerent  governments.  2d. 


262  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

From  a  state  of  concord  the  people  of  these  States  have  been  made  hostile ; 
and  one-half  of  the  people  of  these  States,  capable  under  the  law  of  bear 
ing  arms,  have  become  consumers  instead  of  peaceable  producers  of 
wealth.  3d.  That  these  men,  numbering  perhaps  two  millions,  connected 
with  the  armies  of  the  North  and  South,  are  costing  the  people  at  least 
$1,000,000  per  day,  which  is  not  being  replaced ;  for  all  that  is  spent  in 
war  is,  by  the  laws  of  economy,  a  loss  to  those  who  spend  it,  as  a  mere 
pecuniary  transaction,  and  not  counting  ultimate  and  moral  results.  4th. 
That  since  this  Administration  came  into  power  there  has  been  lost  to 
this  country,  merely  as  a  matter  of  business,  not  counting  debt  and  taxes 
of  a  national  or  State  character,  at  least  three  hundred  millions  in  the 
destruction  of  property,  interference  with  established  business,  increase 
in  wages,  spoliation  of  railroads,  depots,  produce,  corn,  wheat,  flour,  coir 
ton,  hay,  crops,  &c.  5th.  That  the  debt  of  this  country  at  this  time,  if  all 
the  liabilities  not  liquidated  are  included,  and  not  including  the  eighty 
millions  left  by  the  preceding  Administration,  amounts  to  the  sum  of 
one  thousand  millions  ;  and  by  the  1st  of  July,  1864,  will,  in  my  judg 
ment,  amount  to  twenty-five  hundred  millions.  The  estimates  for  the 
army  alone  for  the  next  year  are  $700,000,000.  6th.  That  we  have  now 
a  system  of  taxation  by  tariff  which  imposes  a  burden  on  the  West,  to 
benefit  manufacturing  in  New  England,  and  pays  indirectly  sixty  millions 
into  the  Treasury  and  hundreds  of  millions  into  the  pockets  of  capitalists, 
from  the  consumers,  who  are  mostly  farmers  of  the  West.  7th.  That  we 
have  now  a  system  of  internal  taxation,  costing  for  collection  some  four 
millions  extra,  which  might  have  been  saved,  and  levying  in  one  year 
$150,000,000  as  interest  only  on  a  great  national  debt,  and  with  an  army 
of  newly  made  office-holders,  with  exorbitant  salaries.  8th.  That  within 
these  651  days,  a  party  has  succeeded  which  proposes,  by  legislation  and 
proclamation,  to  break  down  a  labor  system  in  eleven  States,  of  four 
millions  of  negroes  whose  industry  has  been  productive  hitherto,  worth, 
on  or  before  the  4th  of  March,  1861,  an  average  of  $500  apiece,  being 
in  all  two  thousand  millions  of  dollars  ;  and  when  this  capital  is  destroyed, 
the  objects  of  this  pseudo-philanthropy  will  remain  on  hand,  North  and 
South,  as  a  mass  of  dependent  and  improvident  black  beings,  for  whose 
care  the  tax  will  be  almost  equal  to  the  war  tax,  before  their  condition 
will  again  be  fixed  safely  and  prosperously.  9th.  That  within  these  651 
days,  the  rights  of  personal  liberty,  freedom  from  arrest  without  process, 
freedom  for  press  and  speech,  and  the  right  of  habeas  corpus  have  been 
suspended  and  limited,  and,  at  times,  destroyed  ;  and  in  the  place  of  resur 
rected  and  promised  liberty  to  four  million  blacks,  we  have  had  the  de 
struction  of  that  liberty  which  the  past  800  years  have  awarded  to  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race.  10th.  That  for  the  specie  currency  of  a  few  years 
ago,  we  have  already  in  circulation  millions  of  depreciated  government 
promises  to  pay,  ranging  from  $1,000  notes  down  to  five  cent  shinplasters. 
llth.  That  we  have  the  promise  of  a  bankrupt  law  at  this  session,  as  the 
wholesale  result  of  these  commercial  derangements.  12th.  That  we  have 
had  killed  in  these  651  days  at  least  150,000  of  the  best  youth  of  the 
country  on  bloody  fields  of  battle,  and  nearly  the  same  number  by  sickness 
in  camps  and  hospitals.  13th.  That  by  the  decision  of  the  courts,  already 
gi  ven  as  to  the  laws  of  this  Congress — the  legal  tender  and  the  confisca- 


CIVIL   WAB.  263 

tion  acts — we  learn  that  there  is  a  general  encroachment  by  one  depart 
ment  of  the  government  upon  the  other.  14th.  That  the  Christian  religion 
has  been  defiled  by  its  teachers,  and  civilization  set  back  a  half  century  by 
the  demoralization  incident  to  these  unhappy  events. 

This  is  the  radicalism  of  my  colleague.  Conservatism  has  played  the 
radical  so  far  as  to  uproot  this  gigantic  upas  tree,  whose  shade  poisons 
the  nation's  life.  It  would  cover  over  and  refresh  the  exposed  roots  of 
the  goodly  tree  planted  by  the  fathers,  that  it  may  grow  again,  and  blos 
som  and  bear  fruit  for  the  children. 

Is  it  necessary  to  illustrate  the  differences  between  the  radicalism  and 
conservatism  now  operating  in  our  politics  ?  I  will  not  go  back  to  Egypt, 
or  Palestine,  or  even  to  the  Revolution.  We  have  in  our  midst  subjects 
of  comparison.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  STEVENS],  with 
an  intellect  like  a  demi-god,  clamoring  for  a  Dictator,  and  scoffing  at  the 
Constitution,  infinite  in  his  power  of  mischief,  might  well  illustrate  radi 
calism  ;  Avhile  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN],  with  a 
heart  as  large  as  his  intellect,  would  illustrate  the  opposite.  One  defends 
contractors,  palliates  peculation,  and  assaults  investigating  committees. 
Given  the  leadership  here  in  this  time  of  peril,  he  uses  it  to  preach  a 
salus  populi  suprcma  lex,  as  of  higher  sanction  than  his  oath  to  the  Con 
stitution.  He  deals  in  invective,  and  talks  of  being  provoked  by  a  con 
stitutional  opposition  or  a  modest  suggestion.  He  would  tear  down  the 
fabric  of  his  government  to  vent  his  spite  on  an  institution  about  which 
he  has  no  business.  During  this  session  he  voted  for  the  dismemberment 
of  Virginia,  and  gave  these  radical  reasons  : 

"  For  I  will  not  stultify  myself  by  supposing  that  we  have  any  warrant  in  the  Consti 
tution  for  this  proceeding.  This  talk  of  restoring  the  Union  as  it  was  under  the  Consti 
tution  as  it  is,  is  one  of  the  absurdities  I  have  heard  repeated  until  I  have  become  sick 
about  it.  This  Union  can  never  be  restored  as  it  was.  There  are  many  things  which 
render  such  an  event  impossible.  This  Union  shall  never  with  my  consent  be  restored 
under  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  with  slavery  to  be  protected  by  it." 

Such  language  would  befit  the  Richmond  Congress.  He  who  utters 
it,  is  indeed  no  Conservative.  Turn  to  that  other  in  our  midst — a  man 
of  gray  hairs — no  counterfeit  glory  upon  his  head,  but  the  glory  of  a  long, 
useful,  and  patriotic  career.  He  comes  to  us  from  his  retirement  in  Ken 
tucky  to  represent  the  people  among  whom  Henry  Clay  lived  and  died,  to 
counsel  us  in  this  our  country's  trial.  He  bids  us  manifest  temperance 
in  the  very  torrent  and  tempest  of  this  anti-slavery  frenzy.  His  course 
may  arouse  the  sneers  and  ire  of  the  radical.  He  may  be  likened  to  the 
sensual  Israelite,  the  hypocritical  Pharisee,  or  the  obsequious  Tory  ;  but  the 
people  know  him  as  one  who  would  have  saved  them  from  the  war,  and 
who  would  now  lead  them  to  an  honorable  peace.  His  conservatism  would 
not  pull  down.  It  would  build  up.  It  abounds  not  in  empty  cries  of  hu 
manity  about  the  blacks.  It  would  save  this  western  world  to  constitu 
tional  freedom  for  the  white.  It  looks  forward  to  the  day  when  the  old  time 
shall  come  again,  under  the  old  flag.  It  fears  to  let  loose  vengeance  in 
the  form  of  atrocious  confiscations  and  cruel  spoliation  of  non-combatants 
and  deluded  fellow-countrymen.  It  would  give  laws  to  war.  It  would 
conserve  the  home,  the  State,  the  institutions  of  the  country — the  Repub 
lic  !  It  would  never  heal  political  grudges  by  mercenary  contracts.  It 


264  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

would  try  the  traitor  first  and  confiscate  afterwards.  It  would  not  confis 
cate  without  conviction.  It  would  observe  the  law  North  to  punish  its 
breach  South.  It  would  guard  the  Constitution  while  putting  down  its 
assailants.  It  does  not  for  months  assassinate  the  character  of  our  generals 
because  they  do  not  favor  radical  notions.  It  would  conserve  character, 
even  while  it  would  protect  freedom  of  speech  and  unlicensed  printing. 
It  loves  and  admires  the  Constitution,  made  at  Independence  Hall  on  the 
17th  of  September,  1787.  and  would  echo  the  close  of  Story's  Commenta 
ries  :  esto  perpetua  !  It  makes  sacrifice  to  defend  it.  It  votes  and  speaks 
against  the  worthless  men  who,  in  the  name  of  a  higher  law  and  in  the 
name  of  a  military  necessity,  would  destroy  it.  The  difference  between  this 
conservatism  and  that  radicalism,  is  the  difference  between  Hyperion  and 
Satyr,  Gabriel  and  Mephistopheles,  Democracy  and  Abolition  !  The 
people,  thank  God,  though  late,  perceive  the  gulf  which  separates  these 
elements  of  blessing  and  of  woe. 

Yet  my  colleague  would  arraign  this  conservatism  as  pro-slavery  and 
treasonable  ;  and  with  that  irreverence  which  is  not  infrequent  with  his 
class,  he  pretends  that  God  is  on  the  side  of  this  radicalism.  Why,  sir,  I 
speak  it  all  reverently,  God  himself  has  been  called  by  an  abolition  divine, 
a  Democrat.  The  appellation  is  true,  if  Democracy  be  the  synonyme  of 
conservatism.  Providence  organizes  and  conserves.  It  is  a  part  of  his 
established  order.  Besides,  it  has  been  said  that  the  voice  of  the  people  is 
the  voice  of  God.  Surely  these  waiters  on  Providence  should  heed  the 
voice  of  the  people  speaking  from  the  political  Sinai.  Amidst  the  thun 
ders  and  lightnings  and  thick  cloud,  and  the  quaking  of  the  mountain,  the 
trumpet  has  sounded ;  and  yet,  ye,  unlike  Israel,  "  have  not  sanctified 
yourselves,  lest  the  Lord  break  forth  upon  ye."  The  trumpet  voice  has 
spoken  :  We  are  the  people  who  have  set  you  in  high  places. 

Thou  shalt  have  no  other  source  of  power  before  you. 

Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image  of  ebony,  before 
which  to  bow  thyself,  nor  to  serve  it.  [Laughter.] 

Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  liberty  in  vain  ;  for  thou  shalt  not  bo 
held  guiltless  for  such  sacrilege  upon  personal  and  constitutional  freedom. 

Remember  the  election  days  of  October  and  November,  to  keep  them 
holy.  [Laughter.] 

Honor  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  if  you  would  have  your  days 
long  in  the  land. 

Thou  shalt  not  kill — in  vengeance  and  in  vain. 

Thou  shalt  not  degrade  the  white  race  by  such  intermixtures  as  eman 
cipation  will  bring. 

Thou  shalt  not  steal,  nor  suffer  the  money  of  the  people  to  be  stolen  by 
the  army  of  jobbers  and  contractors. 

Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbors,  charging  them 
falsely  with  disloyalty. 

Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  servants,  neither  his  man  servant, 
nor  his  maid  servant,  nor  any  thing  which  is  thy  neighbor's  ;  nor  tax  the 
people  for  their  deliverance." 

Will  these  commandments  be  heeded  ?  I  fear  not.  Too  many  of  the 
other  side  have  lost  their  sense  of  responsibility  by  losing  their  offices. 
Among  all  my  colleagues  of  the  last  Congress,  upon  the  other  side,  but 


CIVIL   WAE.  265 

one  remains — but  one — the  member  from  the  Northwest  [Mr.  ASHLEY], 
and  he  was  elected  by  the  divisions  of  the  conservative  force  of  the  district. 
As  with  the  children  of  Israel,  the  Red  Sea  divided  and  his  virtues  en 
abled  him  to  go  over  dry-shod.  [Laughter.]  My  colleague  [Mr.  HUTCH- 
INS],  who  was  so  kind  as  to  write  my  epitaph  at  the  last  session^  picturing 
me  as  going  down  in  a  colored  "  sunset,"  had  not  even  the  approbation  of 
his  own  party  by  a  nomination.  He  will  allow  me,  with  tender  regret,  to 
borrow  the  apostrophe  of  the  poet  to  Wilberforce,  as  suitable  to  his  case  : 

"  Oh,  shade  of  the  fallen  !     Oh,  Genius  sublime  ! 
Great  friend  of  the  NEGRO,  from  Africa's  clime ; 

Alas  !  how  low  he  lies  !     [Laughter.] 
Night  suddenly  came,  and  his  day  was  done, 
His  sun  was  set,  and  another  sun 

Illumes  the  dusky  skies."     [Laughter.] 

I  doubt  not  his  speech  at  the  last  session  in  favor  of  the  blacks  settling 
where  they  pleased,  was  the  reason  of  his  premature  setting  and  settling. 
He  should  not  complain.  He  was  a  bright  light  of  Republicanism  in  the 
dark  places  of  Ohio  ;  but  he  must  remember  "  that  all  that's  bright  must 
fade."  His  demise  was  a  civil  necessity.  The  people  have  said  to  him  and 
his  friends — all  defeated,  I  believe,  but  about  a  dozen — "  Wayward  sis 
ters  !  depart  in  peace."  [Laughter.]  Let  them  return  to  private  life.  It 
is  their  destiny.  Their  political  graves  are  dug.  Their  winding  sheets 
are  prepared.  Their  gravestones  are  ready.  Methinks  I  hear  the  clods 
fall  upon  their  coffins  at  noon  on  the  coming  4th  of  March.  They  should 
not  complain.  The  earth  itself  must  at  last  pass  away  and  be  rolled  up 
like  a  scroll.  Nature,  trembling  and  in  flames,  will  one  day  give  way. 
Let  them  not  complain,  but  bow  to  the  decree  of  dissolution.  None  knew 
them  but  to  curse  them  ;  none  name  them  but  to  damn.  Properly  and  phi- 
lologically  speaking,  they  are  here  as  the  representatives  of  perdition ; 
for  they  are  lost  to  us.  [Laughter.]  Their  loss  will,  however,  be  our 
gain.  Their  calling  and  election  not  having  been  made  sure,  they  now 
seek,  in  the  little  span  allotted  them,  to  continue  those  political  trans 
gressions  for  which  they  are  condemned  already.  My  colleague  [Mr. 
HUTCHINS]  has,  however,  it  seems,  turned  practical  humanitarian  since  the 
elections.  I  commend  him  for  it.  He  is  no  longer  a  political  Mrs.  Jel- 
laby.  manufacturing  here  moral  pocket  handkerchiefs,  for  the  pickanin 
nies  of  Hilton  Head ;  but  he  has  been  there,  observing  how  the  young 
African  learns  to  shoot  in  a-b-abs,  and  how  the  black  brigade  learns  to 
shoot  in  platoons.  He  has,  no  doubt,  observed  what  the  President  told  the 
preachers  :  "  That  they  eat,  and  that  was  all."  Perhaps  he  might  tell  us 
how  many  thousands,  under  the  humanitarian  regime,  we  have  already 
living  at  our  national  festive  board,  and  singing  the  song : 

"  Old  Uncle  Sam's  the  landlord — we  eat  and  drink  our  fill, 
And  the  wisdom  of  the  measure  is — we  pay  nothing  for  the  bill." 

The  House  refused  us  information  last  session  as  to  these  black  pau 
pers  ;  and  since  then  they  have  increased  and  scattered  over  the  land,  until 
they  number  hundreds  of  thousands ;  we  hear  of  four  hundred  wagon 
loads  in  Mississippi ;  several  thousand  in  the  district  of  my  friend  from 
Illinois  [Mr.  ALLEN]  ;  thousands  here  in  the  District ;  and  for  their  sus 
tenance  and  elevation,  the  overburdened  people  are  to.  be  taxed,  while  the 


266  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

families  of  white  soldiers  clamor  for  food  in  our  cities.  The  House  this 
afternoon  voted  down  the  resolution  of  inquiry  of  my  friend  from  Mary 
land  [Mr.  CALVERT],  as  to  the  cost  of  the  contraband  business  in  Caro 
lina.  I  assert  here  that  the  report  of  the  quartermaster  at  Beaufort,  South 
Carolina^  will  show  that  for  the  month  of  September  four  general  superin 
tendents  received  $150  per  month,  and  sixty-four  other  superintendents 
received  $50  per  month,  for  taking  care  of  ninety-three  negroes  !  This 
report  shows  $3,800  per  month,  being  at  the  rate  of  $45,600  per  annum, 
for  the  care  of  ninety-three,  big  and  little,  male  and  female,  "  free  Ameri 
cans  of  African  descent."  A  thousand  dollars  per  year  would  astonish  a 
western  farmer  for  such  a  service.  Yet  we  are  refused  all  information 
as  to  this  and  similar  infamous  abuses.  But  the  time  is  near  when  all 
will  be  out.  "Why  are  these  things  hidden  from  the  people?  I  think  my 
colleague  might  have  given  us  some  of  his  observations  on  this  head  while 
he  was  in  the  South.  The  consolation  for  this,  the  Executive  gives  us 
when  he  tells  our  people  that  white  men  can  go  down  and  take  the  places 
of  slaves,  if  they  do  not  like  having  the  slaves  coming  North  to  jostle  and 
oust  them  from  their  places. 

I,  too,  like  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  RICHARDSON],  am  anx 
ious  to  support  the  Executive  in  crushing  this  armed  sedition  in  the  South, 
and  will  support  him  whenever  he  is  upon  the  proper  path.  The  elections 
never  meant  to  withdraw  from  him  the  conservative  support,  if  he  had 
pursued  the  policy  marked  out  at  the  extra  session.  But  the  people  have 
condemned  the  chimerical  scheme  of  compensated  emancipation  which  he 
has  again  announced,  and  which  my  colleague  defends — a  scheme  which 
the  President  thinks  will  save  the  enormous  outlays  for  the  war,  by  abol 
ishing  its  cause — Slavery.  How  can  we  apply  those  simple  Mother  Goose 
Melodies  of  the  message,  that  it  is  not  so  easy  to  pay  something  as  noth 
ing,  or  easier  to  pay  a  large  sum  than  a  larger  one— when  emancipation 
will  add  to  the  larger  sum,  something  larger  still,  by  "  reinvigorating  the 
rebellion  "  ?  One  important  question  seems  never  to  have  been  consid 
ered  at  the  White  House — what  if  abolition  does  not  end  the  war  ?  If  the 
fear  of  abolition  was  in  part  the  cause  of  the  war,  will  abolition  stop  it? 
If  there  were  any  thing  true  in  the  motto,  "  Like  cures  like,"  this  might 
be  logic  ;  but,  unfortunately,  like  causes  produce  like  effects.  It  is  utterly 
wild  to  expect  that  the  South  will  disband  or  be  reconciled  or  be  con 
quered  by  abolition  ;  since  abolition  banded  them  in  arms  against  us.  If 
the  President  make  real  the  fears  which  led  them -to  arms  against  the 
Government,  the  war  will  be  embittered,  prolonged,  and  made  more  ex 
pensive.  Untold  millions  will  be  added  as  well  for  the  idle  purpose  of 
turning  over  to  the  Treasury,  or  the  Poor-house,  the  Africans  freed  from 
their  masters,  as  to  pay  for  the  slaves  when  freed.  But  we  are  told  the 
integrity  of  the  Union  will  be  assured  ;  and  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl 
vania  [Mr.  STEVENS]  has  introduced  resolutions  looking  to  this  end. 
The  import  of  his  resolutions  is  confined  to  the  unity  and  indivisibility  of 
the  Union.  The  second  and  fourth  propositions  are  all  included  in  the 
first.  The  second  expresses  the  stigma  which  ought  to  be  fixed  on  him  who 
would  violate  the  national  integrity,  which  is  asserted  in  the  first ;  and 
the  fourth  expresses  the  resolve  never  to  have  that  integrity  broken  "  in 
two."  But,  sir,  there  is  carefully  omitted  all  expression  against  destroy- 


CIVIL   WAE.  267 

ing  or  impairing  our  Government  as  established  by  the  Constitution,  with 
its  present  departments  and  its  present  local,  State,  and  Federal  relations. 
Members  can  vote  for  those  resolutions,  yet  be  in  favor  of  thoroughly  chang 
ing  these  relations.  The  gentleman  can  defend  for  ever  the  unity  of  the 
United  States,  its  territory  and  government,  yet  insidiously  favor  a  sys 
tem  of  centralized  power.  A  dictatorship  has  already  been  heralded  by 
him  here  ;  and  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  these  resolutions.  Every  inch 
of  our  domain  might  remain  under  our  flag,  yet  that  flag  might  be  made 
the  emblem  of  a  new  and  odious  political  system.  The  framers  of  the 
Constitution  admonished  us  that  if  we  should  crush  out  the  States,  though 
the  territory  might  remain,  yet  our  liberties  would  be  lost.  The  unity  of 
a  parcel  of  provinces,  held  by  a  martial  iron  grip,  or  tethered  by  prison 
bounds,  is  not  the  unity  of  the  American  Constitution.  In  a  unity  like 
that,  with  the  States  eclipsed,  how  could  you  make  a  Senate,  an  electoral 
college,  or  a  President  ?  Strike  out  the  planets,  and  you  have  no  system. 
He  is  an  idiot  who  thinks  our  geography  ought  to  be  preserved  at  the 
price  of  our  freedom.  Do  you  want  to  reproduce  the  alliance  of  Ireland 
with  England  ;  Venetia  with  Austria  ?  How  will  you  hold  it  ?  By  large 
armies  at  enormous  cost  ?  How,  in  case  of  foreign  war,  could  you  pre 
serve  such  a  Union  ?  Even  our  territories  grow  restive  under  Federal 
rule,  and  clamor  to  be  States  in  their  nonage.  Such  a  scheme  of  military 
satrapies,  menacing  our  northern  liberty  and  leading  to  endless  intrigue, 
it  is  idle  and  criminal  to  contemplate.  The  people  will  have  none  of  it. 
They  have  thus  instructed  us  in  thunder  tones,  at  the  recent  elections. 
They  desire  no  other  form  or  fact  of  government  than  such  as  the  Consti 
tution  gives ;  no  other  flag  than  that  which  has  all  the  stars  in  equal 
lustre,  and  no  black,  interpolated  between  the  red,  white,  and  blue  ! 

Doubtless  this  popular  will  has  reached  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl 
vania.  Last  session  he  began  with  a  bill,  which  proposed  by  unconstitu 
tional  legislation  to  change  local  interests  from  State  to  Federal  control. 
Now  he  preserves,  as  to  that,  a  discreet  silence  ;  and  only  proposes  a 
unity  of  territory  and  government.  The  people  demand  the  territory  as  it 
was,  the  Government  as  it  is,  and  no  meddling  with  the  area  of  the  one, 
or  the  functions  of  the  other,  by  any  party,  with  any  force,  by  any  laws, 
or  for  any  purpose,  in  the  interest  of  any  species  of  philanthropy,  or  for 
the  benefit  of  any  race,  red,  white,  or  black ! 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  complain  that  the  gentleman  has  omitted  in  his  reso 
lutions  any  expression  as  to  preserving  the  rights,  equality,  and  dignity  of 
the  States  under  the  Constitution.  Who  would  believe  that  such  expres 
sions  were  sincere,  after  the  vote  of  the  gentleman  on  the  21st  of  July 
last  for  a  resolution  of  that  kind,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky 
[Mr.  CRITTENDEN]  ?  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  is  no  hypocrite. 
The  time  for  pretences  has  gone  by.  The  masquerade  is  over.  He  will 
drag  no  unpleasant  corpse  of  memory  about  with  him.  Great  souls  care 
not  for  consistency.  The  Crittenden  resolutions  are  in  the  dead  past  with 
him.  The  State  suicide  doctrine  is  now  openly  avowed.  The  Constitu 
tional  guarantees  to  personal  liberty  and  private  property  are  set  at  naught. 
The  purpose  so  long  hinted  at  and  indirectly  attempted,  to  abolish  slavery 
by  Federal  legislation  or  Executive  proclamation,  has  become  the  shibbo 
leth  of  a  party  and  the  avowed  object  of  the  war.  It  would  not  have  done  to 


268  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

have  avowed  this  purpose  at  the  beginning  of  the  war.  As  has  been  said 
by  the  u  Atlantic  Monthly,"  the  organ  of  the  abolition  dilettanti  in  Boston, 
"  The  opposition  to  the  Southern  secession  took  its  first  form  as  a  rally 
by  all  parties  to  the  defence  of  the  Constitution,  the  maintenance  of  the 
Union.  For  any  anti-slavery  zeal  to  have  attempted  to  divert  the  aroused 
patriotism  of  the  land  to  a  breach  of  one  of  its  fundamental  constitutional 
provisions  would  have  been  treacherous  and  futile.  The  majority  of  our 
enlisted  patriotic  soldiers  would  have  laid  down  their  arms.  If  the  lead 
ings  of  Providence  shall  direct  the  thickening  strife  into  an  exterminating 
crusade  against  slavery,  doubtless  our  patriots  will  wait  on  Providence. 
But  we  could  not  have  started  in  our  stern  work,  avoAving  that  as  an  object 
of  our  own."  The  war  began  for  the  holy  object  of  national  salvation,  by 
the  defence  of  the  Constitution.  The  effort  is  now  made  to  end  it  as  a  dis 
graceful  crusade  against  slavery,  betraying  the  patriotism  of  the  land  and 
mocking  the  hopes  of  mankind.  It  began  for  the  noblest  purpose  ;  unless 
restored  by  the  popular  voice,  now  assuming  its  olden  tone  again,  it  will 
end  in  diabolical  and  merciless  extermination  of  territory,  property,  States, 
Government,  and  Union. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  now  to  condemn  or  discuss  the  acts  of  the  last 
session.  The  nation  has  passed  upon  them  ;  and  there  is  no  need  of  reso 
lutions  or  speeches  to  explain  their  action.  If  the  gentleman  thought  by 
introducing  his  resolutions,  that  he  could  discover  any  lack  of  national 
feeling,  any  sympathy  with  this  unnatural  rebellion,  or  any  desire  here  to 
have  this  nation  changed  in  polity,  symmetry,  or  geography,  he  was  mis 
taken.  If  the  President,  in  his  message,  thought  that  his  argument  in 
favor  of  the  physical  union  of  these  States  was  needed  to  teach  the  peo 
ple  true  views  or  new  views,  he  was  mistaken.  The  meaning  of  the  late 
elections  is,  that  no  separation  of  these  States  can  ever  be  permitted. 
The  people  have  registered  their  oaths  at  the  ballot-boxes,  that  no  infraction 
of  the  Constitution  shall  be  suffered.  They  will  have  unity  without  the  aid 
of  such  counsels.  They  will  have  their  ancient  and  written  charter  of 
liberties,  in  spite  of  all  attempts  to  despoil  them.  There  was  no  need  of 
such  resolutions  ;  there  was  need  of  other  resolutions,  voted  down  by  the 
other  side  ;  resolutions  to  stop  irresponsible  and  arbitrary  arrests  ;  reso 
lutions  against  changing  the  form  of  our  government ;  resolutions  against 
wholesale  and  expensive  philanthropic  experiments,  which  tend  to  Destroy 
the  moral,  religious,  political,  and  physical  substance  and  unity  of  the 
nation. 

I  know  the  impression  has  been  created  among  the  weaker  portion  of 
the  now  weaker  party,  that  the  late  elections  are  somehow  an  expression 
in  favor  of  secession.  If  this  were  true,  what  a  message  of  encourage 
ment  it  would  be  to  the  rebellion  !  Those  who  circulate  libels  upon  the 
people  of  the  North,  either  cannot  have  the  sense  to  perceive  their  effect, 
or  are  regardless  of  the  truth.  If  it  were  true,  how  pitiful  would  be  the 
condition  of  this  nation  !  The  rebels  find  no  such  encouragement  in  these 
elections.  But  the  Richmond  "  Examiner  "  of  November -21  does  find  in 
the  "  policy  of  the  radical  party  North  that  which  alone  could  have  eradi 
cated  the  deep-rooted  sentiment  of  Union  from  the  Southern  bosom."  It 
does  find  "  that  the  radical  party  have  pursued  a  policy  which  has  con 
solidated  Southern  sentiments  and  united  our  [their]  people  as  one  man 


CIVIL   WAE.  269 

in  support  of  the  war."  Such  was  the  belief  of  the  people  as  to  the  effect 
of  radicalism  ;  and  hence  the  result  in  Ohio  and  the  Northwest.  At  the 
East,  let  that  noble  champion,  the  governor  elect  of  New  York,  speak  as 
to  the  significance  of  the  election  in  that  State.  In  his  speech,  before  the 
election,  at  Brooklyn,  Horatio  Seymour  said  : 

"  Now,  when  the  men  of  the  South  made  the  bayonet  and  the  sword  the  arbiter  (they 
elected,  and  not  we);  when  they  and  not  we  determined  to  settle  it  by  blood,  the 
sword,  so  far  as  the  present  is  concerned,  must  be  the  arbiter ;  and  in  our  strong  right 
arm  it  shall  strike  vigorous  and  true  blows  for  the  life  of  our  country,  for  its  institutions, 
and  for  its  flag.  Now  let  me  say  this  to  the  higher  law  men  of  the  North,  and  to  the  higher 
law  men  of  the  South,  and  to  the  whole  world  that  looks  on  as  witnesses  to  the  mighty 
events  transpiring  in  this  country,  that  this  Union  shall  never  be  severed ;  no,  never. 
Whatever  other  men  may  say,  as  for  the  conservative  people  of  this  country,  and  as  for 
myself  as  an  individual — let  other  men  say  and  think  what  they  please — as  for  the  divis 
ion  of  this  Union,  and  the  breaking  up  of  that  great  natural  alliance  which  is  made  by 
nature  and  by  nature's  God,  I  never  will  consent  to  it,  no,  never,  as  long  as  I  have  a  voice 
to  raise  or  a  hand  to  fight  for  this  our  glorious  land." 

The  Executive  message  as  to  the  indivisibility  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  resolutions  of  the  gentleman,  are  but  the  feeble  echo  of  this  stal 
wart  cry  of  the  people  :  "  That  this  Union  shall  never  be  severed — no, 
never.  The  natural  alliance  made  by  nature  and  nature's  God,  shall  never 
be  broken — never."  It  was  because  the  people  feared  this,  that  they  have 
hurled  so  many  of  you  from  your  seats  here.  The  epitaph  upon  this 
Congress,  which  with  a  glad  prophetic  grace  I  had  the  honor  to  pencil  for 
your  political  sepulchres  at  the  last  session,  will  be  carved  in  that  enduring 
marble  which  will  be  at  once  the  grave  of  sedition  and  •  the  monument  of 
loyalty ! 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  people  have  condemned  this  administra 
tion  because  there  was  not  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  The  dis 
missal  of  General  McClellan  was  justified  because,  as  it  was  alleged,  he 
had  not  dash  or  movement  enough  to  satisfy  the  electors  of  the  country. 
Facts,  in  letters  and  despatches  which  are  yet  to  transpire,  will  show  :  1st. 
That  this  is  a  mere  pretext ;  and,  2d.  That  there  were  other  reasons  for 
the  dismissal.  My  distinguished  and  sagacious  friend  from  Illinois  [Mr. 
RICHARDSON]  inferred  that  the  real  reason  for  that  dismissal  was,  that 
McClellan  did  not  agree  with  the  emancipation  and  other  radical  schemes 
of  the  cabinet.  I  assert  here  as  a  fact,  which  I  do  know,  and  which  con 
firms  the  inferences  of  my  friend,  that  the  President  was,  about  the  mid 
dle  of  July,  informed  distinctly  of  the  mode  by  which  and  the  principles 
upon  which  General  McClellan  intended  the  war  to  be  conducted  and  the 
Union  saved.*  He  was  advised  that  McClellan  disapproved  of  any  infrac 
tion  of  the  laws  of  civilized  and  Christian  warfare  ;  that  he  disapproved 
of  arbitrary  arrests  in  places  where  the  insurrection  did  not  prevail ;  that 
he  did  not  contemplate  any  seizure  of  private  property  for  the  support  of 
the  army,  or  for  punishing  and  desolating  the  region  invaded  ;  but  that  he 
earnestly  desired  that  the  war  should  be  carried  on  as  a  duel  between 
organized  armies,  and  not  against  non-combatants  ;  that  the  institutions  of 
the  States  should  be  protected ;  that  no  proclamation  of  freedom,  incens- 

*  This  reference  is  to  the  famous  Harrison  Bar  letter,  which  afterwards  appeared, 
and  which  General  McClellan  had  before  this  speech  read  to  Gov.  Crittenden  and  myself. 


270  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

ing  a  servile  race  to  indiscriminate  massacre  of  helpless  whites,  and  in 
viting  the  destruction  of  unoffending  blacks,  should  be  permitted  ;  in  fine, 
that  wherever  it  was  possible,  the  military  should  be  subordinate  to  the 
civil  authority,  and  the  Constitution  alone  should  be  the  guide  and  glory 
of  heroic  sacrifice.  This  plan  did  not  suit  radicalism.  It  was  not  obnox 
ious  to  the  President  in  the  summer,  but,  somehow,  it  became  so  in  the 
fall ;  and  hence  the  General  of  the  Potomac  suddenly  became  unskilled 
in  the  art  of  war.  His  science  in  creating  and  inspiring  an  army  after 
Bull  Run  was  forgotten.  His  grand  movement  and  splendid  fighting  be 
fore  Richmond  were  ignored.  His  attempt  to  take  Richmond  was  belittled, 
although  he  pleaded,  as  if  the  life  of  the  nation  hung  on  it,  for  reinforce 
ments,  without  which  he  made  no  promise  and  had  no  hope  of  success. 
His  superb  battles  in  Maryland,  his  salvation  of  Washington  from  the  blun 
ders  of  Pope,  or  those  over  him,  were  conveniently  slighted.  It  was  pre 
tended  that  he  did  not  move  fast  enough  after  the  battle  of  Antietam  ;  that 
he  was  abundantly  supplied,  but  failed  to  pursue  the  defeated  enemy. 
Time  will  show  who  are  to  blame  for  failing  to  supply  the  army  at  that 
critical  time.  Such  pretexts  will  hardly  stand  before  the  official  records 
which  will  be  published.  At  the  time  when  McClellan  was  dismissed,  he 
was  moving  his  immense  army  more  than  ten  miles  a  day.  His  cavalry 
were  driving  the  enemy  before  them,  and  his  infantry  and  artillery  were 
pushing  them  back  from  the  frowning  gaps  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  His 
movements  were  as  fast  as  prudence,  in  such  a  situation,  warranted. 

No,  sir,  this  removal  of  the  general,  whose  genuine  patriotism  and 
skilful  genius  had  inspired  the  army  with  enthusiasm,  was  a  sacrifice  to 
appease  the  Ebony  Fetich.  But  he  was  displaced  for  Burnside.  True  ;  and 
he  told  his  army  to  stand  by  Burnside  as  they  had  by  him.  And  Burn- 
side  had  told  us  that  McClellan  was  "  an  honest,  Christian-like,  and  con 
scientious  man,  with  the  soundest  head  and  clearest  military  perception 
of  any  man  in  the  United  States."  Fatal  words  !  They  have  in  them 
the  ultimate  fate  of  Burnside.  Let  us  pray  for  his  success  fervently,  as 
he,  no  doubt,  has  prayed  for  the  presence  of  McClellan  during  the  past 
eventful  week.  But  let  us  watch  as  we  pray  ;  for  he  too  will  be  brought 
to  the  stone  of  jasper,'  another  sacrifice  to  the  Mumbo  Jumbo  of  abolition. 
What  have  we  gained  by  McClellan's  removal?  Celerity  of  movement? 
A  better  base  of  operations?  Nearness  to  Richmond?  Supplies  by 
water,  and  a  point  d'appui  for  gunboats?  Or,  suppose  we  conquer  at 
Fredericksburg,  will  not  our  army  at  last  be  compelled  to  return  to  James 
River,  as  the  only  base  from  which  operations  can  succeed  against  Rich 
mond — that  point  from  which  McClellan  was  dragged,  despite  his  cry  of 
despair,  which  seemed  almost  to  forebode  the  destruction  of  the  Republic  ? 

In  the  vicissitudes  of  this  war  the  Administration  will  be  compelled 
to  resort  to  McClellan's  plans  and  the  conservative  policy.  Unless  this  be 
done  the  war  will  fail,  and  a  disadvantageous  peace  may  result,  for  almost 
any  peace  will  be  hailed  as  better  than  the  war  as  it  is  now  conducted.  The 
war  must  be  carried  on  under,  and  not  over  the  Constitution.  When  that 
course  is  resumed,  the  patriotic  North  will  respond  as  it  has  before  re 
sponded.  The  conservative  members  of  the  next  Congress  will  demand 
such  a  return.  The  President  will  find  that  there  will  be  representatives 
here  who  mean  to  save  their  institutions  and  rebuild  the  Union. 


CIVIL   WAR  271 

This  parrot  cry  that  these  elections  indicate  a  sympathy  with  the 
Southern  rebellion  has  been  iterated  for  party  purposes  at  home.  It  was 
not  manufactured  for  foreign  consumption.  It  did  harm  abroad.  Well 
might  Mr.  Seward,  with  more  truth  than  is  usual  to  diplomatic  finesse, 
write  a  chapter  to  counteract  the  bad  effect  of  such  falsehoods.  On  the 
10th  of  November  last  he  advised  Mr.  Adams  at  London  : 

"  That  while  there  may  be  men  of  doubtful  political  wisdom  and  virtue  in  each  party, 
and  while  there  may  be  differences  of  opinion  between  the  two  parties  as  to  the  measures 
best  calculated  to  preserve  the  Union  and  restore  its  authority,  yet  it  is  not  to  be  inferred 
that  either  party,  or  any  considerable  portion  of  the  people  of  the  loyal  States,  is  disposed 
to  accept  disunion  under  any  circumstances,  or  upon  any  terms.  It  is  rather  to  be  under 
stood  that  the  people  have  become  so  confident  of  the  stability  of  the  Union  that  partisan 
combinations  are  resuming  their  sway  here,  as  they  do  in  such  cases  in  all  free  countries. 
In  this  country,  especially,  it  is  a  habit  not  only  entirely  consistent  with  the  Constitution, 
but  even  essential  to  its  stability,  to  regard  the  Administration  at  anytime  existing  as  dis 
tinct  and  separable  from  the  Government  itself,  and  to  canvass  the  proceedings  of  the  one 
without  the  thought  of  disloyalty  to  the  other." 

Who  is  there  on  the  opposite  side  who  dare  echo  the  sincere  tribute  of 
Mr.  Seward  to  the  loyal  Democracy?  Who  of  you  has  had  the  gener 
osity  to  distinguish  between  sustaining  the  Government  and  criticizing  the 
Administration  ?  Who  among  you  does  the  Secretary  reckon  of  "  doubtful 
political  wisdom  and  virtue  "  ?  Certainly  it  is  he  who  would  counsel  a 
war  against  slavery  ;  for  he  said  to  Mr.  Adams,  on  the  17th  of  February, 
1862,  in  speaking  of  the  crusade  against  slavery : 

"  To  proclaim  the  crusade  is  unnecessary,  and  it  would  even  be  inexpedient,  because 
it  would  deprive  us  of  the  needful  and  legitimate  support  of  the  friends  of  the  Union  who 
are  opposed  to  slavery,  but  who  prefer  union  with  slavery  to  disunion  without  slavery. 
Does  France  or  does  Great  Britain  want  to  see  a  social  revolution  here,  with  all  its  hor 
rors,  like  the  slave  revolution  in  St.  Domingo  ?  Are  these  powers  sure  that  the  country 
or  the  world  is  ripe  for  such  a  revolution,  so  that  it  must  certainly  be  successful  ?  What 
if,  inaugurating  such  a  revolution,  slavery,  protesting  against  its  ferocity  and  inhumanity, 
should  prove  the  victor  ?  " 

Again,  on  the  5th  of  July,  1862,  he  says : 

"  It  seems  as  if  the  extreme  advocates  of  African  slavery  and  its  most  vehement  op 
ponents  were  acting  in  concert  together  to  precipitate  a  servile  war— the  former  by  mak 
ing  the  most  desperate  attempts  to  overthrow  the  Federal  Union,  the  latter  by  demanding 
an  edict  of  universal  emancipation  as  a  lawful  and  necessary,  if  not,  as  they  say,  the  only 
legitimate  way  of  saving  the  Union." 

He  accuses,  therefore,  every  one  who  would  pervert  the  war  from  its 
primitive  and  loyal  purpose  into  an  anti-slavery  crusade,  as  depriving  the 
country  of  its  loyal  friends.  He  accuses  all  such  of  aiding  to  bring  on  a 
social  revolution,  like  that  of  St.  Domingo,  involving  all  its  ferocity  and 
inhumanity.  If  this  indictment  be  true,  who  will  escape  condemnation  ? 
The  vote  the  other  day  to  sustain  the  proclamation  will  show.  When  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  was  framing  his  crimination  against  those 
who  would  propose  peace  on  the  basis  of  separation,  which  inculpates  no 
one  on  this  side,  did  he  know  whereof  he  was  accused  by  the  Premier  of 
the  Administration?  The  people  have  tried  and  condemned  all  such  as  are 
thus  accused.  But  while  those  who  are  approved  by  them  never  will 
"  accept  disunion  under  any  circumstances  or  upon  any  terms, "  still  it  is 
nevertheless  true  that  these  elections  do  indicate  a  profound  unrest  among 
the  people,  as  to  the  continuance  of  this  war  on  the  line  of  policy  now 


272  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

about  to  be  pursued.  They  do  indicate  that  in  the  popular  mind  there  is 
a  hope  yet  alive,  and  efforts  yet  to  be  tried,  perhaps  not  opportune  just 
now,  to  adjust  the  causes  of  strife  and  bridge  over  this  abyss,  below  which 
is  surging  the  torrent  of  blood.  They  do  approve  of  the  President's  re 
mark,  that  after  all  our  fighting,  we  must  at  last  make  some  accommoda 
tions.  The  London  Times  says  truly,  that  "  in  the  result  of  these  elections 
we  think  we  see  a  hope  that  the  word  '  compromise '  will  soon  come  into 
general  use  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic."  The  President  himself 
seems,  in  an  oblique  way,  to  have  taken  the  hint,  and  his  late  message 
writes  out  in  plain  hand  this  once-honored  word — COMPROMISE. 

But  how  shall  we  begin  the  work  of  compromise  ?  What  is  honora- 
able  and  just,  under  present  circumstances?  Is  it  true,  as  is  alleged,  that 
the  Southern  States  under  certain  circumstances  are  willing  to  return  to 
the  Union?  Is  it  true  that  the  President  is  thus  advised?  I  know  not; 
but  if  so,  what  sacrifices  can  be  made  to  restore  the  Union  ?  Or,  indeed, 
ought  any  talk  of  compromise  to  be  held,  while  the  guns  of  the  rebellion 
thunder  along  the  Rappahannock,  or  our  navies  meet  with  resistance  down 
the  Mississippi?  Shall  we  wait  the  results  of  the  present  movements? 
Shall  we  then,  in  case  of  failure,  wait  till  another  year?  Shall  we  talk 
of  compromise  before  our  debt  reaches  the  estimate  of  Mr.  Chase,  on  the 
1st  of  June  next,  and  towers  up  to  $1,122,297,403.24?  Or  shall  we  wait 
till  the  year  after,  when  it  shall  still  mount  up  to  $1,744,595,590.80  ?  Or 
still  more  nearly,  on  the  next  year's  day,  when  the  Commander-in-Chief 
shall  have  declared  all  persons  held  as  slaves  in  any  State  or  designated 
part  of  a  State  then  in  rebellion,  to  be  then,  thenceforward,  and  forever 
free  ?  If  that  grand  panacea  fail,  shall  we  still  wait  until  another  million 
shall  be  added  to  our  army?  Another  hundred  thousand  to  our  hospitals? 
Another  hundred  thousand  fresh-made  graves  upon  our  soil?  Another 
three  hundred  millions  of  loss,  by  destruction  of  public  enterprises,  private 
property,  and  by  the  wholesale  derangement  of  the  social,  business,  and 
labor  systems  of  the  land?  Or  will  compromise  be  more  acceptable, 
North  and  South,  if  possible  at  all,  when  another  half  million  of  slaves 
are  freed  by  the  friction  and  abrasion  of  the  war  ?  Or  will  it  be  when 
slave  labor  is  enfranchised  and  exported  to  regions  where  it  will  never  add 
a  dollar  to  the  national  treasury  or  to  the  general  wealth?  Or  when  the 
four  million  slaves,  being  freed  by  war,  legislation,  confiscation,  or  procla 
mation — which  my  colleague  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  thinks  may  cause  some 
slight  inconvenience — shall  seek  the  North  Star,  and  by  an  exodus,  already 
great  and  increasing,  shall  disturb  the  relations  of  labor  in  the  free  States, 
until  a  new  irrepressible  conflict  shall  arise  between  white  and  black  la 
bor?  Or  shall  the  war  go  on,  without  effort  to  compromise,  with  no 
attempt  at  arbitrament,  until  extermination  results?  Will  you  com 
promise  with  desolation  and  call  it  peace?  Will  you  glory  in  the  unity 
and  indivisibility  of  a  territory  denuded  by  the  besom  of  war  ?  When — 
when — Representatives,  is  peace  honorable,  and  compromise  just?  Are 
these  "  forces  "  to  "  endure  "  so  long  as  there  is  a  cotton  and  rice  field  in 
Carolina,  or  a  sugar  plantation  in  Louisiana,  unscathed  by  war  or  unset 
tled  by  free  labor?'  If  the  day  of  compromise  be  postponed  till  then, 
may  not  the  Federal  sceptre  be  a  barren  one  in  your  gripe  ?  Or  may  not 
other  schemes  of  union — economic,  political,  and  geographical — and  other 


CIVIL   WAE.  273 

ruinous  projects  of  secession  still  further  distract  our  country?  These 
problems  may  well  be  considered  by  the  loyal  and  patriotic.  Let  us  be 
wise  in  time,  before  worse  evils  overtake  and  overwhelm  us. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  still  cling  to  the  hope  of  union.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  war,  there  were  but  few  secessionists  per  se.  It  was 
the  fear  that  the  Northern  States  were  hopelessly  abolitionized,  that 
overcame  the  loyalty  of  the  majority  South,  and  united  them  against 
us.  The  very  excesses  of  power  in  this  Congress,  its  attempt  to  pervert 
the  war,  its  aggressions  on  personal  freedom  and  constitutional  right, 
have  extinguished  the  fire  of  radicalism  and  relit  the  old  beacon  which  led 
us  onward  in  unity  and  to  prosperity  !  The  result  of  the  elections  will  as 
sist  to  restore  the  Union.  The  reaction  in  the  South  will  soon  begin. 
The  elements  of  discontent  North  which  have  helped  to  rescue  power  from 
arrogant  and  imbecile  men,  will  work  with  more  force  in  the  South. 
Cotton  has  lost  his  sceptre.  His  throne  is  in  ashes.  Privateering,  so 
truculently  blazoned  by  Slidell,  in  the  Senate,  as  the  avenger  of  Southern 
wrongs,  has  proved  itself  but  a  toothless  harpy.  Foreign  intervention 
will  never  be  allowed,  North  or  South.  The  currency,  trade,  and  estab 
lished  order  South,  all  deranged,  are  powerful  levers,  now  prying  the 
loosened  stones  into  their  old  places.  For  such  a  work  there  is  a  fulcrum 
deep  in  the  heart  of  the  people,  which  neither  radicalism  nor  secession 
can  wholly  disturb  !  The  very  failures  of  both  armies  to  make  decisive 
victories,  notwithstanding  the  extraordinary  vigor  and  splendid  heroism 
of  our  soldiers  in  the  field,  and  the  fabulous  expenditure  of  money  and 
men,  will  assist  the  consummation  of  our  hopes.  We  have  expended,  in 
two  years,  men  and  money  enough,  had  we  been  united,  to  have  added  a 
dozen  Indias  to  our  conquering  chariot.  Money  enough  has  been  filched 
by  corrupt  contractors,  treasures  enough  have  been  wasted  on  political 
favorites,  to  have  belted  the  globe  with  our  flag,  and  added  the  rest  of  the 
Continent  to  our  empire.  But  all  has  been  as  yet  in  vain  ;  for  there  stood 
and  yet  stands  between  the  people  and  their  hope  this  blighting  black  de 
mon  of  radicalism,  unwise  beyond  all  that  is  written  in  history,  and  power 
less  for  every  thing  except  mischief  and  malevolence.  Against  its  Satanic 
"  pressure,"  brought  to  bear  upon  the  President  by  the  mad  cabal  of 
zealots,  the  people  have  protested.  You  may  discard  their  warning  in 
mockery ;  you  may,  in  spite,  remove  the  generals  they  indorse  and  love ; 
you  may  persevere  in  your  radical  and  destructive  work  ;  you  may  for  a 
few  weeks  more  press  your  doctrine  that  the  States  are  in  rebellion,  and 
therefore  have  committed  felo  de  se,  and  are  to  be  stricken  from  the  roll 
of  the  Union ;  you  may  strive  to  legislate  down  the  Constitution ;  but 
your  days  are  numbered  !  I  see  the  death  sweat  on  your  brow  !  In  these 
resolutions,  in  the  indemnity  bill  passed  the  other  day,  and  in  the  crazed 
speculations  of  my  colleague,  which  still  linger  from  the  past  session,  and 
in  the  bill  of  the  member  from  Pennsylvania  for  a  hundred  thousand  black 
soldiers,  I  hear  the  death-rattle  in  your  throats.  You  will  pass  away ; 
and  you  will  only  be  remembered  to  point  a  political  moral,  and  to  teach, 
as  .Robespierre  and  his  radical  times  teach  us,  that  anarchs  and  destruc 
tives  have  their  uses  in  the  political  world,  as  the  hurricane  and  pestilence 
in  the  physical  world.  The  very  attempt  to  foil  the  popular  will,  you  are 
now  making,  will  make  your  condemnation  more  terrible.  There  is 
18 


274.  EIGHT   TEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 

something  insurrectionary,  says  Arnold,  the  historian,  in  the  attempt  to 
restrain  the  popular  will.  Had  you  and  the  Executive  bowed  to  the  popu 
lar  verdict,  as  in  England,  under  a  less  liberal  system,  the  rulers  ever  do, 
posterity  might  have  embalmed  you  to  a  little  immortality  for  that  act  of 
grace.  But  no  !  this  thunder  tone  of  dissatisfaction  with  your  conduct  is 
seized  upon  and  avowed  by  some  here  in  my  presence,  as  the  very  reason 
why,  now,  in  the  brief  time  of  your  power,  you  should  enact  further  mis 
chief. 

You  had,  and  would  yet  have,  the  whole  conservative  force  in  a  war 
to  overthrow  the  organization  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  You  were 
not  content  with  that.  We  were  united  on  that,  but  you  were  determined 
to  divide  the  North.  By  culpable  and  treacherous  divergence  from  the 
plain  path  marked  out  by  the  Crittenden  resolution,  you  are  determined 
to  make  this  a  war  against  populations,  against  civilized  usage,  to  over 
throw  State  institutions  and  blot  out  State  boundaries,  and,  by  defiance  of 
the  organic  law,  to  defeat  the  cause  of  the  nation,  by  making  the  old 
Union  impossible. 

But  mark  !  you  will  not  succeed.  The  army  itself  will  never  consent 
to  degrade  itself  by  becoming  superior  to  the  civil  power.  You  cannot 
use  it  to  break  through  the  sacred  barriers  which  protect  the  Constitution. 
Nor  will  the  people  ever  consent  to  give  proclamations  the  force  of  law  ; 
for  even  in  England  that  has  been  held  to  be  a  surrender  of  the  liberty  of 
the  nation  to  usurpation.  The  people  are  informed  of  those  traditional 
privileges  which  were  secured  by  their  ancestors.  Beginning  even  before 
Magna  Charta,  written  in  the  "  Apologies "  and  Bills  of  Right  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  race,  enacted  thirty-two  times  from  Runnytnede  until  the 
Declaration  of  Right  in  1688,  they  are  yet  preserved  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  country.  At  the  recent  election  the  people  asked,  as  Went- 
worth  once  questioned  a  certain  dispensing  power  in  England,  "  whether 
there  be  any  council  that  can  make,  add  to,  or  diminish  from  the  laws  of 
this  realm?"  They  ask  now  in  this  our  House  of  Commons,  as  they  will 
ask  more  proudly  in  the  next,  whether  the  spirit  yet  lives  which  resisted 
ship  money,  the  dispensing  power  of  the  Stuarts,  and  arbitrary  imprison- 
men{,  and  which  demanded  trial  upon  accusation  and  by  a  jury  whenever 
the  subject  was  seized  by  the  sovereign.  They  know  that  there  is  no  com 
pensation  for  yielding  these  rights  of  personal  security,  without  which  all 
other  rights  are  useless.  This  is  a  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  elections  ; 
and  whether  in  your  evanescent  power  you  regard  it  or  not,  the  people 
are  upon  the  throne  again,  and  woe  to  him  who  passes  beyond  the  limits 
marked  by  the  still  swelling  tide  of  an  indignant  and  aroused  people. 

But,  is  it  asked :  "  Do  you  want  the  war  to  stop  in  order  to  divide  the 
Union  ?  "  The  people  have  answered  as  Seymour  answered,  as  I  answer 
you  here  :  No  !  But  they  want  the  war  carried  on,  as  all  civilized  wars 
are  carried  on,  with  a  view  to  peace  and  union,  and  not  with  a  view 
to  the  aggravation  and  prolongation  of  hostilities.  I  affirm  on  the  best 
human  and  divine  authority,  that  all  objects  of  human  effort,  even  war, 
should  contribute  to  human  happiness  and  peace.  If  this  war  have  any 
other  object,  then  it  is  abhorred  of  God  and  man  ;  and  every  dollar  and 
life  sacrificed  would  be  criminal  waste.  Am  I  answered  that  this  war  is 
an  exception  to  other  wars?  If  so,  why?  Because  it  was  begun  in  re- 


CIVIL  WAJJ.  275 

bellion?  Let  Vattel,  in  his  18th  chapter  of  his  3d  book,  answer!  His 
answer  meets  the  very  case.  He  stands  above  our  stormf'ul  passions  and 
gives  the  law  of  wisdom  for  our  guidance.  In  that  chapter  he  maintains 
these  propositions : 

1st.  That  a  sovereign  is  bound  to  observe  the  common  laws  of  war 
toward  his  rebellious  subjects  who  have  openly  taken  up  arms  against  him. 
He  derives  this  rule  from  the  relations  the  sovereign  bears  toward  his  sub 
jects.  Having  derived  his  right  to  rule  from  them,  he  is  to  watch  over 
their  welfare.  But  what  if  his  subjects  take  up  arms  to  deprive  him  of 
the  supreme  authority?  Then,  if  the  evil  spreads  so  as  to  infect  the  ma 
jority  of  the  people  of  a  city  or  province,  and  gains  such  strength  that  even 
the  sovereign  is  no  longer  obeyed,  it  becomes  an  insurrection.  His  con 
duct  toward  the  insurgents  should  be  consonant  to  justice  and  salutary  to 
the  State.  Vattel  declares  that  subjects  who  rise  against  the  sovereign 
deserve  severe  punishment ;  yet  even  in  this  case,  on  account  of  the  num 
ber  of  the  delinquents,  he  holds  that  clemency  becomes  a  duty  in  the  sov 
ereign.  Shall  he  depopulate  a  city  or  desolate  a  province  in  order  to  pun 
ish  her  rebellion  ?  Any  punishment,  however  just  in  itself,  which  embraces 
too  great  a  number  of  persons,  becomes  an  act  of  downright  cruelty.  He 
illustrates  these  doctrines  by  referring  to  Henry  the  Great,  of  France,  who 
gained  a  nation  by  his  clemency,  and  to  the  Duke  of  Alva,  who  lost  the 
United  Provinces  to  the  King  of  Spain  by  his  cruelty.  The  time  will 
come  for  the  President  to  exhibit  the  magnanimity  of  the  one  or  the  in 
humanity  of  the  other. 

Again  :  I  beg  the  House  to  listen  to  the  wisdom  of  this  great  publicist, 
who  holds,  as  he  would  doubtless  have  held  with  us  of  the  last  Congress 
who  attempted  by  seasonable  concession  to  avert  this  war,  "  That  the 
safest,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  just  method  of  appeasing  sedition, 
is  to  give  the  people  satisfaction.  And  if  there  exists  no  reason  to  justify 
the  insurrection  (a  circumstance  which  never  happens),  even  in  such  a 
case  it  becomes  necessary  to  grant  an  amnesty  where  the  offenders  are 
numerous."  But,  as  if  this  rebellion  was  before  his  mind,  he  selects  the 
case  of  a  republic,  divided  into  two  opposite  parts,  and  where  both  parts 
are  in  arms.  This  he  calls  a  civil  war.  u  The  sovereign,"  he  says, 
"  never  fails  to  call  those  in  insurrection  rebels;  but  when  the  rebels  have 
acquired  sufficient  strength  to  give  the  sovereign  effectual  opposition,  and 
to  oblige  him  to  carry  on  the  war  against  them  according  to  the  established 
rules,  he  must  submit,  necessarily,  to  the  term  civil  war.  In  this  case 
there  is  no  common  judge  between  the  two  parties.  They  are  thencefor 
ward  two  separate  bodies,  two  distinct  societies.  Though  one  of  the  par 
ties  may  have  been  to  blame  in  breaking  the  unity  of  the  State  and  resist 
ing  the  lawful  authority,  they  are  not  the  less  divided  in  fact.  But  who 
shall  judge  them?  On  earth  they  have  no  common  superior.  They 
stand,  therefore,  in  precisely  the  same  predicament  as  two  nations  who 
engage  in  a  contest." 

2d.  This  being  the  case,  the  common  laws  of  war,  the  maxims  of  hu 
manity,  moderation,  and  honor,  are  to  be  observed.  For  a  stronger 
reason,  he  says,  ought  such  laws  to  be  observed  by  two  incensed  parties, 
lacerating  their  common  country.  Indeed,  the  very  instance  which  Vat 
tel  gives,  of  the  sovereign  hanging  liis  prisoners  as  rebels,  has  already  oc- 


27G  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

curred  with  us  in  Missouri,  and  we  arc  threatened,  as  he  anticipates,  with 
reprises  and  retaliation,  which  we  have  no  power  to  resist.  But  for  these 
laws,  the  war  would  thus  become  every  day  more  cruel,  horrible,  and  de 
structive.  What,  then,  is  the  conclusion  at  which  he  arrives  ? 

3d.  Whenever  a  numerous  body  of  men  think  they  have  a  right  to  re 
sist  the  sovereign,  and  feel  themselves  in  a  condition  to  appeal  to  the  sword, 
there  ought  to  be  left  open  the  same  means  as  between  two  nations  for 
preventing  the  war  being  carried  to  outrageous  extremities,  and  for  the 
restoration  of  PEACE. 

If  these  maxims  of  the  great  jurist  be  the  voice  of  reason,  conscience, 
and  the  civilized  world,  this  Government  is  under  the  necessity  to  practise 
moderation,  justice,  and  clemency  toward  the  insurgents.  We  have  no 
right,  as  Mr.  Seward  thought  in  February,  to  inaugurate  any  system  of 
emancipation  which  will  lead  to  the  atrocities  and  inhumanities  of  slave 
insurrection.  Such  a  course,  as  Mr.  Seward  held,  will  only  "  reinvigorate 
the  rebellion."  In  such  a  contest  there  is  not  an  attribute  of  the  Al 
mighty  which  can  take  sides  with  us.  As  well  fire  the  hospitals  of  the 
sick,  and  the  libraries  of  the  learned ;  as  well  pillage  the  homes  of  the 
widow  and  the  heritage  of  the  orphan  ;  as  well  refuse  the  flag  of  truce  or 
the  exchange  of  prisoners  ;  as  well  fire  upon  the  former  and  hang  the  lat 
ter  ;  as  well  poison  the  weapons  of  war  or  the  wells  of  water  ;  as  well  re 
fuse  the  offices  appointed  by  necessity  to  soften  the  rough  usages  of  war, 
as  to  inspire  or  set  on  foot  a  system  leading  to  servile  massacre.  Nay, 
by  the  same  reason  that  we  would  abstain  from  these  horrible  means 
which  intensify  sectional  hate,  and  reinvigorate  rebellion,  we  must  leave 
open  the  same  means  which  two  nations  at  war  ever  have,  for  the  resto 
ration  of  peace.  % 

Now  I  inquire,  first,  into  the  reason  of  these  maxims  ;  secondly,  into 
the  means  which  are  open  to  belligerent  nations  ;  and  what,  if  any,  means 
are  open  to  this  nation  for  the  restoration  of  peace. 

First.  The  maxims  quoted  spring  from  the  desirableness  of  ending 
hostilities.  As  in  war  no  one  can  enjoy  quietly  his  rights,  in  peace  he 
has  that  privilege  ;  and  if  controverted,  he  can  rationally  discuss  them 
with  a  view  to  the  remedy.  Peace  is  the  natural  and  best  state  of  man. 
All  agree  to  that.  Under  its  protection,  and  through  its  amenities,  that 
intercourse  is  secured  which  is  most  beneficial,  economically  and  socially, 
and  which  tends  to  the  highest  advancement  of  man.  Passion  produces 
war ;  reason  keeps  and  restores  peace.  It  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the 
Government  to  seek  peace  with  the  people.  The  beatitudes  are  promised 
to  the  peacemaker.  God  smiles  on  him,  and  gives  him  a  double  blessed 
ness  in  this  life  and  in  the  life  to  come.  Poets  may  sing  the  glories  of 
heroic  achievements, 

"  But  like  a  bell  with  solemn  sweet  vibrations 
I  hear  the  voice  of  Christ  say — Peace." 

If  it  were  now  possible  that  the  French  Emperor,  without  intrench 
ing  upon  our  prerogative  as  a  proud  and  independent  State,  could  succeed 
in  restoring,  by  his  friendly  mediation,  the  Government  and  the  Union  as 
it  was  ten  years  ago,  Avhen  his  coup  d'etat  seemed  to  destroy  the  hopes 
of  Republican  France,  and  to  become  the  peacemaker  and  "  Union 


CIVIL   WAR.  277 

* 

saver"  of  this  distracted  land,  the  beauty  of  the  act  would  whiten  "his 
whole  life,  and  even  make  mankind  forget  the  fatal  2d  of  December, 
1852.  He  would  deserve  the  eulogy  of  the  great  writer  to  whom  I  have 
referred ;  and  become  greater  at  that  moment  than  in  the  midst  of  his 
most  splendid  conquests  in  the  Crimea  and  in  Italy,  which  he  is  about  to 
illustrate  in  bronze  upon  a  new  Arch  of  Triumph  in  his  capital !  So  de 
sirable  is  the  return  of  peace,  so  divine  the  office  of  peacemaker,  that 
mankind  joins  with  Vattel  in  picturing  Augustus  shutting  the  temple 
of  Janus,  and  giving  peace  to  the  Universe,  and  adjusting  the  disputes 
of  kings  and  nations,  as  the  greatest  of  mortals,  and  as  it  were  a  god 
upon  earth  ! 

Second.  What  are  the  means  left  open  to  belligerents  by  the  laws  of 
civil  war  ?  T  do  not  speak  now  of  a  condition  of  things  not  yet  apparent 
in  this  country,  when  one  of  the  parties  is  reduced  by  war  to  sue  for 
peace ;  or  where  both  are  weary  of  the  war,  and  thoughts  of  accommo 
dation  are  entertained,  and  peace  steps  in  and  puts  a  period  to  the  war. 
I  assume  now  a  condition  of  things  in  which,  upon  our  part,  as  we  voted 
the  other  day,  our  resources  are  greater  than  ever,  and  our  spirit  is  unflag 
ging  ;  and  on  the  other  part,  that  the  resources  of  the  rebellion  are  yet  for 
a  time  sufficient  to  harass  and  withstand  the  Federal  authority  in  a  large 
part  of  the  immense  area  to  be  rescued  from  the  rebellion.  I  §peak  now 
of  a  condition,  in  which  an  armed  force  of  over  700,000  men  are  upon 
our  side,  and  400,000  on  the  other ;  the  one  having  the  advantage  of  re 
sources,  and  the  other  the  advantage  of  being  near  their  own  homes  ;  and 
when  the  spirit  of  each  is  but  little  less  than  it  was  one  year  ago.  I  speak 
also  upon  the  hope  and  hypothesis  that  the  influence  of  the  late  elections 
will  greatly  abate  the  apprehensions  and  mitigate  the  aversion  of  the  mass 
of  the  Southern  people  against  the  North ;  and  that  a  less  revengeful 
spirit,  developed  in  these  elections,  prevails  at  the  North.  Thus  circum 
stanced,  and  even  while  we  omit  no  martial  or  naval  exertion  on  behalf 
of  the  Government,  where  is  the  initiative  for  peace?  I  assume  that  it  is 
not  necessary  that  the  war  should  stop  to  prepare  for  peace.  The  late 
war  with  Great  Britain  went  on  and  battles  were  fought  even  while  our 
commissioners  were  at  Ghent,  and  after  peace  was  celebrated.  An  ar 
mistice  is  not  an  indispensable  preliminary  to  negotiation.  In  the  proposi 
tions  which  I  submitted  more  than  a  year  ago  to  this  House,  I  proposed 
to  increase  the  armament  of  army  and  navy,  even  while  I  would  have 
sent  commissioners  from  the  loyal  States  to  the  disloyal ;  not  to  recognize 
or  treat  with  the  Confederate  government,  but  to  meet  commissioners  from 
the  States  South,  which  are  still  and  ever  a  legal  and  indestructible  entity, 
and  with  whom  alone  we  could  then  have  conferred.  Neither  is  it  indis 
pensable  to  the  beginning  of  negotiations,  that  the  executives  at  Washing 
ton  and  Richmond  should  confer. 

Although  publicists  have  held  that  the  same  power  which  has  the  right 
to  make  war  and  direct  its  operations,  has  naturally  that  likewise  of 
concluding  peace  ;  yet  by  our  system  of  government,  it  would  be  impossi- 
for  our  Executive,  notwithstanding  the  maxim  I  have  quoted,  to  begin 
negotiations  or  conclude  them  by  treating  with  the  Confederate  govern 
ment  at  Richmond.  Neither  has  the  President  of  the  United  States  any 
power  to  declare  war  or  conclude  peace.  He  could  not  if  he  would,  he 


278  EIGHT   YEAE8   IN   CONGRESS. 

% 

dare  not  if  he  could,  make  a  treaty  of  peace  which  would  alienate  an 
acre  of  our  territory,  or  release  a  State  or  a  citizen  from  the  obligation  due 
to  the  Federal  Government.  However  disadvantageous  war  may  be,  yet 
there  is  no  authority  to  conclude  a  peace,  except  in  pursuance  of  the  Con 
stitution.  It  has  been  held  that  a  sovereign,  when  the  State  is  reduced 
to  any  calamitous  exigency,  may  determine  by  what  sacrifices  he  will 
purchase  peace ;  but  in  this  country,  where  the  written  Constitution  is 
the  guide  of  duty,  there  can  be  no  exigency  which  would  authorize  a 
breach  of  that  fundamental  law  upon  which  repose  all  our  interests. 
Better  the  President  should  suffer  the  tortures  of  Regulus,  than  usurp  a 
power  to  make  a  peace  not  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  and  the 
integrity  and  indivisibility  of  the  Republic.  From  no  quarter  and  by  no 
election  has  there  been  any  expression  which  looks  to  a  peace  based  on 
the  separation  of  this  country  into  two  nations.  No  mediation  or  inter 
vention  from  any  foreign  power,  based  upon  such  a  suggestion,  would  be 
tolerated  for  a  moment.  If  Europe  intervened  for  such  a  purpose,  the 
war  would  become  continental.  Any  mediation  or  intervention  would 
be  spurned  which  would  obstruct  the  relations  of  the  Union,  either  by 
embarrassing  our  arms  or  our  negotiations.  But,  are  we  to  be  shut  off 
in  the  future  from  all  hope  of  stopping  the  effusion  of  blood  ?  If  the 
South  wo«ld  be  content  with  the  Constitution  faithfully  administered,  as 
they  have  shown  by  adopting  it  as  the  basis  of  their  own  establishment ; 
and  if  they  aro  aggrieved  only  by  alleged  and  apprehended  infractions  of 
it,  to  the  detriment  of  their  local  systems ;  why  may  we  not  hereafter 
come  together,  upon  that  Constitution  as  the  basis  of  an  amicable  adjust 
ment,  and  by  such  an  amendment  of  it,  made  in  pursuance  of  its  own 
provisions,  as  will  assure  to  the  South  perfect  immunity  from  unjust  inter 
meddling  with  their  local  rights,  reestablish  the  Government,  while  we 
reintegrate  its  territory?  The  difficulty  is  in  making  the  advance  to 
an  accommodation,  as  such  an  advance  would  be  imputed  to  weakness. 
Moreover,  the  war  may  be  persisted  in  from  ambition,  pride,  and  animosi 
ty,  or  from  a  desire  to  exterminate  slavery ;  and  these  may  be  obstacles 
to  be  surmounted.  If  such  be  our  condition,  then  we  have  this  rule  laid 
down  for  us  by  Vattel,  that  "  on  such  occasions,  some  common  friends  of 
the  parties  should  effectually  interpose  by  offering  themselves  as  media 
tors."  It  is  the  office  of  beneficence  ;  and  it  is  held  to  be  the  indispensa 
ble  duty  of  those  who  have  the  means  of  performing  it  with  success. 
Such  a  mediation  derogates  nothing  from  that  Constitution  db  intra — 
that  perfect  autonomy  of  the  State,  which  is  by  all  public  law  and  by  the 
divine  order  guaranteed  to  every  independent  nation. 

This  brings  me  to  the  third  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Penn 
sylvania,  denouncing  all  mediation  and  intervention  from  abroad.  The 
Monroe  doctrine  never  had  a  stronger '  reason  than  now  for  its  enforce 
ment.  Intervention  in  our  affairs  can  never  be  allowed.  It  is  a  vague 
term,  and  has  had  a  variety  of  interpretations  by  the  selfish  and  ambitious 
powers  of  P^urope,  struggling  to  fix  the  balance  of  power.  Its  opposit-e 
is  the  established  principle  of  the  law  of  nations.  ^Vbn-intervention  is 
drawn  from  the  essential  sovereignty  of  every  nation,  great  and  small. 
Intervention  is  the  exception,  and  is  only  justified  as  an  extreme  measure — 
1st,  when  it  is  demanded  by  self-preservation ;  and  2d,  when  some  ex- 


CIVIL   WAB.  279 

traordinary  state  of  things  is  brought  about  by  the  crime  of  the  Govern 
ment.  (Woolsey's  International  Law,  p.  91.)  History  is  full  of  illus 
trations  of  these  doctrines,  running  from  ancient  Greece  to  modern  Italy. 
There  never  can  be  any  application  of  them  to  this  Government  which  is 
not  in  violation  of  our  sovereign  rights  upon  this  continent,  and  which, 
if  we  had  the  power,  we  would  not  resist  by  our  arms.  Intervention 
comes  armed.  It  takes  sides.  It  has  ambitious  designs.  It  is  against 
our  interest,  tradition,  history,  and  feeling.  But  mediation  is  ostensibly 
friendlv  and  inoffensive.  We  should  guard  against  the  most  silken  in 
veiglement  by  France  or  any  European  power ;  but  there  is  nothing  ap 
parent  in  the  note  of  Drouyn  de  L'Huys  tendering  a  mediation,  which 
indicates  any  ambitious  or  unkind  intermeddling.  In  the  note  of  the 
Minister  of  October  30,  there  is  nothing  which  looks  like  a  mediation  for 
peace  at  the  expense  of  the  Union.  Any  "  pressure  "  upon  us  is  expressly 
repudiated ;  and  the  mediation  is  only  tendered  to  smooth  obstacles,  in 
case  of  a  wish,  on  our  part,  for  such  mediation.  In  the  text  of  Drouyn 
de  L'Huys'  note,  the  Emperor  bases  his  overtures  on  the  painful  interest 
with  which  Europe  has  regarded  our  great  calamity  and  prodigious  effu 
sion  of  blood.  This  interest  may  be  quickened  by  the  idle  looms  of 
Lyons  and  the  lessened  market  for  French  wines.  The  mission  proposed 
is  one  which,  as  France  feels  and  states,  international  law  assigns  to  neu 
trals.  It  is  only  intended  to  u  encourage  public  opinion  to  views  of  con 
ciliation."  In  this  tender,  a  scrupulous  delicacy  is  observed  against 
offending  our  national  susceptibility  against  intervention.  The  constant 
tradition  of  French  policy  toward  this  country  is  appealed  to  with  appa 
rent  sincerity. 

We  cannot  be  insensible  to  such  advances.  But  a  spectre  stands  in  the 
way  to  scare  us  from  its  consideration — France  in  Mexico  !  Sixty  thou 
sand  Chasseurs  de  Vincennes,  Voltigeurs  de  la  Garde,  and  Chasseurs 
d'Afrique  !  What  are  they  doing  there  ?  Has  a  Bonaparte — the  author 
of  the  coup  d'etat — the  Emperor  of  that  nation  which  fought  in  the  Crimea 
and  Italy,  become  scrupulous  of  shedding  blood?  If  so,  why  do  his  le 
gions  throng  toward  the  capital  of  Mexico  to  "  regulate  "  a  hostile  people? 
Can  humanity  inspire  this  project  of  mediation  in  our  affairs  ? 

I  prefer  to  think,  knowing  the  difference  between  Mexico  and  this 
country,  that  his  policy  in  Mexico  is  not  intended  to  be  hostile  to  us,  as 
against  the  South  ;  for  nothing  can  be  more  unfavorable  to  the  dreams  of 
Davis  and  his  confederates  than  the  establishment  of  a  European  dynasty 
on  their  border.  Besides,  France  has  ever  been  our  ally.  For  great  rea 
sons  of  State,  and  as  an  essential  element  of  the  equilibrium  of  the  world, 
she  helped  us  to  establish  Independence.  Her  blood  mingled  with  ours  to 
acquire  it.  Louisiana  came  from  her  hand  to  enlarge  our  domain.  No 
interest  in  silk,  wines,  and  cotton,  no  design  in  Mexico,  ought  to  enter 
into  her  plans  of  mediation.  Besides,  if  she  meditates,  by  mediation,  the 
Union  of  these  States,  she  may  quadruple  her  Chasseurs  in  Mexico,  and 
her  ensign  may  float  from  every  castle  in  that  ill-starred  land ;  but  our 
Union,  if  restored,  would  exert  its  first  energy  in  reestablishing  the  conti 
nental  policy  of  Monroe,  and  all  her  plans  in  Mexico  would  fail.  There 
fore,  from  the  text  of  the  French  note,  and  its  explanation  since  by  the 
secretary  of  the  French  Minister,  and  being  confirmed  in  the  belief  that 


280  EIGHT   YEAE8   IN   CONGRESS. 

under  the  "  armistice  France  would  have  lent  her  aid  to  a  restoration  of 
the  Union,"  I  do  not  augur  any  present  armed  intervention  or  sinister 
motives  in  her  tender  of  mediation.  Still,  the  best  foresight  may  fail  in 
sounding  the  designs  of  the  wonderful  man  who  now  occupies  St.  Cloud. 
Our  safety  from  all  intervention  lies,  not  merely  in  our  iron-clad  navy, 
not  in  our  voluminous  diplomacy,  but  in  the  determination  of  the  people 
to  throw  off  this  load  of  rebellion.  If  the  capacity  of  our  rulers,  in  the 
conduct  of  our  affairs,  was  shown  to  be  equal  to  the  task  of  regaining  the 
Federal  supremacy  at  home,  we  should  not  be  menaced  by  European  pat 
ronage  and  meddling.  If  we  are  divided  by  radical  counsels,  and  if  we 
incite  the  servile  race  to  atrocious  insurrections,  our  revenues  will  be 
wasted,  our  Government  broken,  and  England  will  laugh  at  our  calami 
ties,  and  Europe  will  intervene  for  our  everlasting  degradation.  I  do  not 
believe  that  France  means  hostility  to  us  in  her  tender  of  mediation. 
From  my  observation  I  believe  that  she  is  now,  as  she  was  in  the  days  of 
Rochambeau  and  Lafayette,  desirous  of  seeing  our  Union  perfected.  She 
loves  England  little.  Waterloo  is  not  a  myth,  nor  has  Time  bleached  out 
its  red  memories.  Our  growing  naval  power  is  not  pleasing  to  England  ; 
but  it  is  not  obnoxious  to  France,  which  has  ever  been  jealous  and  fearful 
of  English  supremacy  on  the  sea.  England  refuses  to  join  in  the  tender 
of  mediation  for  the  very  reason  that  she  winked  at  the  "  Alabama"  when 
she  cleared  the  Mersey,  and  now  permits  a  thousand  hammers  to  rivet  the 
iron  mail  upon  a  score  of  Confederate  steamers.  England,  whose  philan 
thropy  is  in  a  cotton  pod,  refused  the  tender  of  France  because  she  does 
not  care  to  see  this  Democratic  Republic  as  a  standing  menace  to  aristoc 
racy,  and  ever  rivalling  her  upon  the  ocean.  England  does  not  wish  to 
mediate,  for  she  fears  that  if  united  we  might  be  less  tolerant  of  her  bra 
vado.  She  now  smiles  with  satisfaction  over  the  transfer  of  commerce 
from  American  to  English  bottoms,  owing  to  the  increase  of  marine  insur 
ance,  created  by  her  own  breaches  of  neutrality.  France  may  with  Eng 
land  have  some  selfish  reason  for  wishing  us  at  peace.  But  France  prefers 
that  we  should  have  peace  and  the  Union  ;  England  prefers  peace  and  a 
separation.  The  one  is  a  friend,  the  other  an  enemy. 

The  friendly  offices  of  France  may,  after  our  arms  shall  have  had  more 
decisive  success  and  our  elections  have  permeated  the  Southern  mind 
with  a  kindlier  feeling,  be  of  great  use  in  forwarding  the  only  true  object 
of  the  war,  which  is  peace  and  Union. 

It  is  an  insult  to  History  to  expect  that  war  alone  will  unite  us.  Force 
may  subdue  the  rebellion ;  but  other  means  must  reconcile  the  people 
North  and  South.  Interchange  of  commodities  and  mutual  courtesies 
will  not  do  it ;  for  separate  nations,  like  France  and  England,  have  these 
and  yet  would  forever  remain  distinct  and  hostile.  Consanguinity  alone 
will  not  do  it.  Many  races,  as  the  Gauls,  Romans,  Franks,  and  Burgun- 
dians,  constitute  France,  and  have  become  nationalized  into  one,  without 
the  ties  of  kindred.  Language  alone  will  not  do  it ;  for  Great  Britain  is 
one,  though  the  people  sing  with  Llewellyn  in  Welsh,  and  Burns  in  Scotch, 
and  Shakespeare  in  English.  The  unity  of  a  State  by  the  principle  of  na 
tionality,  results  from  the  unforced  and  spontaneous  union  of  inclinations 
among  a  people.  "  And  Hamor,  and  Shechem  his  son,  communed  with 
the  men  of  the  city,  saying :  These  men  are  peaceable  with  us,  therefore 


CIVIL   WAK.  281 

let  them  dwell  in  the  land  and  trade  therein ;  for  the  land,  behold,  it 
is  large  enough  for  them ;  let  us  take  their  daughters  to  us  for  wives, 
and  let  us  give  them  our  daughters ;  only  herein  will  the  men  consent 
unto  us  to  dwell  with  us,  to  be  ONE  PEOPLE."  A  movement  looking  to 
this  consenting  of  the  affections  will  restore  the  Union.  The  sword 
must  be  garlanded  with  the  olive.  The  bayonet  alone,  said  Mirabeau, 
will  only  establish  the  peace  of  Terror — the  silence  of  Despotism.  In 
one  way,  and  in  one  way  only,  could  mediation  be  effective,  by  bring 
ing  together  commissioners  North  and  South,  not  to  arrange  a  treaty 
of  peace,  not  to  agree  upon  a  compromise,  but  to  inaugurate  IN  THE 
STATES — in  the  States  which  are  constituent  elements  of  our  Confedera 
tion,  the  original  fountain  of  power  from  which  the  Constitution  derived 
its  vitality — a  movement  looking  to  a  national  convention  where,  in  con 
formity  with  the  requirements  of  our  Constitution,  there  could  be  found 
our  common  judge  on  earth,  the  sovereign  people  of  the  again  United 
States  !  I  do  not  now  undertake  to  say  in  detail  what  such  a  Convention 
ought  to  do.  It  ought  to  compose  all  our  troubles  in  the  spirit  of  amity ; 
and,  unless  we  have  degenerated  beyond  all  former  generations,  it  ought 
to  evoke  the  spirit  of  1787,  and  weave  and  plait  anew  that  bond  of  Union, 
strong  as  the  mighty  interests  of  this  nation,  which  are  to  be  imbound  by 
it  forever.  In  such  a  convention  of  States,  rigid  justice  might  not  be 
meted  out  to  either  party.  Neither  party  would  be  condemned  to  humili 
ating  sacrifices,  inconsistent  with  the  future  dignity  and  equality  of  the 
States.  All  losses  could  not  be  reimbursed ;  for  who  could  call  again  to 
life  the  thousands  slain  in  the  unhappy  strife  ?  But  in  the  spirit  of  Chris 
tian  brotherhood  all  might  be  arranged,  the  Union  be  started  again  upon 
a  career  of  progress  under  the  old  flag  and  with  a  new  hope,  amidst  the 
shouts  of  a  free  and  peaceful  people,  and  all  the  States  side  by  side,  like 
the  majesties  of  Olympus,  commune  kindly  through  all  the  ages  of  his 
tory — 

"  Self-reverent  each,  and  reverencing  each, 
Distinct  in  individuality, 
But  like  each  other,  even  as  those  who  love." 


PURITANISM   IN    POLITICS. 

NEW  ENGLAND  ISMS INTOLERANCE  AND   PROSCRIPTION — HER  COLONIAL    CUSTOMS  AND  LAWS — 

VIRTUES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND EARLY  PURITANISM  AGAINST  DEMOCRACY — A  POLITICAL  CHURCH 

WITHOUT  A  RELIGIOUS  STATE — TRANSCENDENTALISM  AND  BRAHMINISM POLITICAL  HISTORY 

OF  NEW  ENGLAND INVOCATION  TO    UNION. 

THE  speech  which  follows  was  not  delivered  in  Congress,  but  at  New 
York  city,  on  the  13th  of  January,  18G3,  before  the  Democratic  Union 
Association.  It  was  reported  by  many  of  the  New  York  papers  with 
gross  garbling.  Its  sentiments  were  misrepresented,  and  subjected  to  much 
acrimonious  criticism  in  Congress.  I  insert  it  here  that  it  may  be  judged 
properly.  It  touched  the  amour  propre  of  New  England.  The  "  Atlantic 


282  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

Review  "  exercised  its  malignant  spirit  by  vituperating  its  author.  Rev. 
Mr.  Beecher  replied  to  portions  of  it,  at  Boston  ;  but  in  his  speech  he  ad 
mitted  what  is  the  gist  of  the  speech,  the  meanness  and  intolerance  of  a 
portion  of  the  New  England  people.  The  New  York  "  Tribune,"  within 
the  past  few  months,  has  said  as  much,  if  not  more,  than  the  writer,  in 
stigmatizing  a  certain  class  in  New  England  who  have  been  foremost  in 
obtaining  the  pecuniary  results  from  the  war,  without  contributing  to 
its  success. 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  facts  presented  in  this  speech  are 
authentic.  If  the  veil  is  withdrawn  from  the  character  and  history  of  early 
New  England,  it  is  because  that  character  and  history  are  so  frequently 
thrust  into  the  faces  of  other  people  as  the  only  type  of  what  is  liberal, 
humanitarian,  and  pious.  I  have  endeavored  to  discriminate  between  the 
genuine  devotee  of  Democratic  and  soul  liberty  in  New  England,  and  the 
mere  pretender.  In  doing  this  I  may  give  offence  to  many.  But  there 
will  be  no  offence  to  those  who  have,  since  the  war  has  ended,  seen 
the  crusade  of  agitation  in  relation  to  reconstruction  and  negro  suffrage. 
That  crusade  has  begun  in  Boston.  Its  threats  of  new  revolution  have 
been  made  to  overawe  President  Johnson  into  the  adoption  of  "  Boston 
notions."  Whether  it  shall  succeed  or  fail,  depends  upon  the  firmness  of 
the  conservative  men  of  other  sections. 

The  speech  being  addressed  to  a  popular  audience  is  perhaps  overloaded 
with  such  demonstrations  as  are  incident  to  such  occasions.  I  give  the 
report,  however,  as  it  was  published : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Young  Men's  Democratic  Association  of  New  York  : 
— If  this  hearty  enthusiasm  were  before  an  election  I  could  more  readily 
understand  it.  It  seems,  however,  that  you  have  begun  the  campaign  of 
1864.  Let  us  be  patient  and  persevering  ;  and  if  the  great  central  States 
will  stand  by  the  West  till  then,  as  they  did  last  fall,  we  may  rescue  the 
Government  from  the  hands  of  the  spoilers,  and  reinvigorate  the  national 
life  from  that  fountain  of  all  power,  the  people.  [Cheers.]  Gentlemen, 
a  New  England  orator,  Tristam  Burges,  once  said,  that  "  we  were  sur 
rounded,  protected,  and  secured  by  our  Constitution,  from  the  power  and 
violence  of  the  world,  as  some  wealthy  regions  are,  by  their  own  barriers, 
sheltered  from  the  ravages  of  the  ocean.  But  a  small,  insidious,  perse 
vering  reptile  may,  unseen,  bore  through  the  loftiest  and  broadest  mound. 
The  water  follows  its  path,  silently  and  imperceptibly  at  first,  until  at 
length  a  breach  is  made  ;  and  the  ocean  rushing  in,  flocks,  and  herds,  and 
men  are  swept  away  by  the  deluge."  Puritanism  is  the  reptile  which 
has  been  boring  into  the  mound,  which  is  the  Constitution,  and  this  civil 
war  comes  in  like  the  devouring  sea  !  Its  rushing  tide  of  devastation  will 
not  be  stayed  until  the  reptile  is  crushed  and  the  mound  rebuilt.  This 
will  never  be  accomplished  until  an  administration  obtains  control,  which, 
in  the  language  of  Governor  Seymour,  can  grasp  the  dimensions  and  con- 


CIVIL   WAE.  283 

trol  the  sweep  of  this  sanguinary  flood.  [Cheers.]  To  obtain  such  an 
administration,  the  people  will,  unhappily,  have  to  wait  tor  some  two 
years.  Meanwhile,  what  new  schemes  of  division  may  further  distract 
us !  My  apprehension  is,  that  before  the  people  can  thoroughly  reform 
the  conduct  of  their  government,  another  civil  strife  may  be  raging ;  not 
the  South  against  the  North  ;  not  slave  against  free  States  ;  but  the  North 
against  itself.  I  pray  God  in  his  mercy  to  avert  such  dangers.  The 
hatred,  not  of  New  England,  but  of  its  arrogant,  selfish,  narrow,  and  Puri 
tan  policy,  now  dominant  in  the  Federal  Government,  will,  I  fear,  never  be 
allayed  until  blood  is  shed  in  our  northern  States.  There  is  but  one  policy 
which  could  have  stopped  it ;  the  maintenance  by  the  Administration  of 
the  policy  marked  out  in  the  summer  of  1861,  which  declared  no  war  for 
conquest — no  anti-slavery  crusade.  This  alone  united  the  North.  This 
might  have  preserved  that  unity.  But  I  see  no  hopes  of  a  return  to  such 
a  policy.  The  bigots  of  New  England  have  their  copyists  outside,  and 
the  anti-slavery  pressure  continues.  Indeed,  it  is  questioned  whether 
any  policy  can  now  restore  the  Union.  Abolition  has  made  the  Union, 
for  the  present,  impossible.  An  aroused  people  may  strike  blindly  and 
madly,  and  the  result  may  be  the  formation  of  new  alliances  among  the 
States  and  fresh  conflicts  among  the  people.  As  a  western  man,  repre 
senting  the  capital  of  the  leading  State  of  the  northwest  during  these  past 
six  years,  I  have  not  been  unobservant  of  the  signs  in  that  quarter.  1 
have  persistently  opposed  all  schemes  of  secession  and  division.  I  yet 
oppose  them.  But  I  am  far  behind  the  impulse  and  sentiment  of  the 
West.  The  erection  of  the  States  watered  by  the  Mississippi  and  its 
tributaries  into  an  independent  Republic,  standing  on  its  own  resources, 
mineral  and  agricultural,  with  a  soil  so  fat  that  if  you  "  tickle  it  with  a 
hoe  it  will  laugh  with  a  harvest"  [cheers] — a  connection  with  which 
would  be  sought  by  the  South  and  the  East,  yet  choosing  for  itself  its 
cheapest  and  best  outlet  to  the  sea  ;  banded  together  by  river  and  homo 
geneity  of  interest — is  becoming  something  more  than  a  dream.  It  is  the 
talk  of  every  other  western  man.  Men  fall  into  it  with  a  facility  which 
is  shocking  to  the  olden  sense  of  nationality.  1  speak  of  these  schemes 
only  to  disapprove  and  to  warn.  Just  as  in  1861,  in  my  seat  in  Congress, 
I  warned  of  similar  southern  schemes,  but  in  vain.  All  warning  fell  on  , 
sodden  hearts.  In  vain  the  lamented  Douglas  urged ;  in  vain  the  noble 
Crittenden  pleaded.  [Cheers  for  Crittenden  !]  New  England  fanaticism 
made  compromise  impossible.  Let  us  now  be  warned  in  time  !  As 
patriotic  men,  loving  our  whole  countrv,  we  must  understand  the  source 
of  this  new  discontent.  The  West  protest  now,  as  New  York  and  Penn 
sylvania  and  New  Jersey  protested  in  the  last  elections,  that  tli.ey  desire 
to  stand  in  the  Union,  protected  by  all  the  muniments  of  the  Constitution. 
Governor  Seymour  means  much  and  well,  when  he  says  that  these  central 
and  western  States  will  at  last  assure  us  of  our  old  Union.  [Cheers.] 
They  are  willing  to  perform  the  voyage — desert  the  ship  who  may.  They 
will  keep  all  the  shipping  articles — break  them  who  may.  They  do  not 
intend  to  be  ruled,  however,  by  the  Constitution-breaking,  law-defying, 
negro-loving  Phariseeism  of  New  England  !  [A  voice,  u  Let  her  slide  " 
— cheers.]  No.  We  will  keep  her  in  on  her  good  behavior,  and  cast  forth 
the  seven  devils  of  clerical  meddling  and  monopolizing  aggrandizement 


284  EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

from  this  political  Magdalen.  [Laughter.]  From  the  social  and  political 
ban  which  will  he  issued  against  this  pestilent  section,  will  issue  another 
and  a  better  order  of  things,  under  the  Constitution. 

I  entreat  the  Democratic  young  men  of  New  York  not  to  countenance 
any  of  these  schemes  of  dismemberment,  which  we  of  the  West  will 
repress ;  but  never  cease  day  nor  night  to  warn  the  people  of  the  new 
rocks  and  fresh  breakers  which  threaten.  He  who  is  most  faithful  in 
pointing  them  out  in  time,  though  he  may  be  reviled,  gives  the  best  proof 
of  single-hearted  loyalty,  and  will  be  approved  by  his  conscience  and  his 
God.  Denying  all  sympathy  with  any  scheme  which  would  in  any  way 
mutilate  the  Republic,  I  boldly  declare  to  you  these  new  and  growing 
dangers.  Jefferson  Davis  is  aware  of  these  things,  and  counts  largely 
upon  the  weakness,  incertitude,  and  division  engendered  by  the  fatal  errors 
of  this  Administration.  Already  the  Democratic  organ  of  Cincinnati  and 
the  Republican  organ  at  Chicago  are  issuing  their  warnings  in  season. 
The  latter  advises  its  friends  in  Congress,  that  the  farmer  who  is  selling 
his  corn  for  ten  cents  per  bushel,  if  he  does  not  use  it  for  firewood,  is  not 
easily  satisfied  that  there  does  not  exist,  somewhere,  a  way  through  which 
those  who  act  for  him  at  Washington  may  afford  him  relief.  At  least, 
he  will,  if  the  relief  cannot  be  instant,  want  to  know  why  it  should  not  be 
prospective.  He  is  perfectly  aware  that  while  New  England  is  getting 
the  benefits,  the  West  is  suffering  the  burdens  of  this  war.  In  New 
England,  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  1-ave  accumulated  fortunes 
with  Aladdin-like  rapidity.  There,  wages  are  high  and  contracts  abun 
dant  ;  while  the  West,  with  the  Mississippi  sealed,  is  charged  extortionate 
rates  in  the  transportation  of  its  produce,  and  in  the  price  of  its  purchases. 
Its  people  are  robbed  by  tariff,  and  robbed  on  what  they  sell  and  what 
they  buy.  .  Mr.  Beecher  has  boasted  that  God  has  given  the  Yankee  that 
intelligence  that  knows  how  to  turn  to  gold  all  it  touches.  [Laughter.] 
It  is  his  insatiate  cupidity,  mingled  with  his  Puritanism,  which  is  now 
making  men  study  the  new  Census  ;  which  makes  the  New  Yorker  won 
der  why,  with  a  less  population,  New  England  has  twelve  Senators  to 
her  two  !  Ohio,  too,  ponders  the  fact  that  her  population  is  greater,  by 
435,294,  than  five  New  England  States,  yet  they  have  ten  Senators  while 
she  has  two  !  The  West  is  beginning  to  ask  whether  this  political  equality 
among  the  States,  made  for  a  wise  reason,  is  to  be  used  for  her  oppression  ; 
whether  to  that  source  is  attributable  the  partial  legislation  which  fosters 
manufacture  and  burdens  the  consumer ;  which  hampers  the  free  inter 
change  and  enterprise  of  this  great  emporium  ;  which  shuts  off  the  compe 
tition  of  the  world,  and  gives  to  New  England  fabrics  the  monopoly  among 
ten  millions  of  western  farmers.  Why  are  we  to  pay  fifty  per  cent,  more  for 
goods,  and  lose  fifty  per  cent,  on  wheat,  and  corn,  and  pork  ?  Fifty  per  cent. ! 
I  should  say  ninety  per  cent.,  adding  the  cost  of  gold,  in  which  the  tariff 
is  paid,  to  the  custom  duties,  which  the  consumer  at  last  pays.  To  gratify 
one  favored  class  and  section,  the  laws  of  economy  are  suspended  with  the 
Constitution !  [Laughter  and  cheers.]  Is  free  trade  good,  when  it  takes 
off  the  duty  and  stops  the  revenue  on  madder  and  coloring  matter,  but  bad 
if  it  lets  in  free  cotton  and  woollen  fabrics  ?  Is  it  right  to  tax  Illinois  whis 
key  until  the  manufacture  is  stopped,  to  gratify  the  members  from  Maine, 
and  let  the  tariff  remain  on  wood-screws,  to  enrich  a  Rhode  Island  com- 


CIVIL    WAK.  285 

pany  ?  One  is  made  in  the  West  and  the  other  in  New  England  ;  but  is 
that  a  reason  why  the  one  should  be  burdened  by  an  internal  tax  to  destroy, 
while  the  other  bears  an  external  tax  to  foster  ?  Do  you  wonder  that,  at 
public  meetings  West,  it  is  resolved  that  the  Mississippi  Valley  shall  no 
longer  be  tributary  to  cupidity  and  folly,  and  that  men  madly  cry  out : 
<;  New  England  fanaticism  and  speculation  have  made  Disunion  !  New 
England  stands  in  the  way  of  Re-Union  !  Perish  New  England,  that  the 
Union  may  live  !  "  There  is  a  legend  related  of  St.  Lawrence.  As  he  lay 
on  the  gridiron,  conscious  that  he  was  sufficiently  done  on  one  side,  he 
requested  the  cooks,  if  not  too  inconvenient,  to  turn  him  over  and  do  him 
on  the  other.  [Laughter.]  I  fear  the  West  will  never  be  canonized,  if  it 
requires  such  double  sacrifices  to  reach  the  saintly  calendar.  [Laughter.] 

But  these  economic  abuses  can  be  righted  by  another  Congress.  The 
evils  are  temporary.  They  would  be  borne,  but  unhappily  they  seem 
to  be  accompanied  by  an  element  harder  to  master — the  PURITANISM  of 
New  England.  [Hisses.]  This  is  bred  in  the  bone.  It  is  the  same 
now  that  it  was  hundreds  of  years  ago.  Like  begets  like.  Generation 
succeeds  generation,  with  the  same  stamp  of  Puritan  character ;  taking 
success  for  justice,  egotism  for  greatness,  cunning  for  wisdom,  cupidity 
for  enterprise,  sedition  for  liberty,  and  cant  for  piety.  [Applause.]  The 
West  do  not  complain  merely  that  their  interests  are  sacrificed  by  New 
England  capitalists,  for  their  aggrandizement ;  but  they  detest  the  idea 
of  Puritan  politics,  that  sins  should  be  reformed  by  the  State,  and  that 
the  State  should  unite  its  functions  practically  with  the  church,  for  the 
propagation  of  moral  and  religious  dogmas.  For  these  objects  the  laws 
of  economy  and  the  dictates  of  public  opinion,  which  ever  look  to  the 
interest  of  sections  and  men,  are  disregarded.  lie  who  fails  to  observe 
these  laws  understands  little  of  the  science  of  government.  New  England 
may  be  accounted  smart  in  intellect,  cunning  in  invention,  and  energetic 
in  industry.  She  may  boast  of  her  libraries,  schools,  churches,  and  press. 
She  may  understand  the  science  which  subsidizes  the  lever,  the  pulley, 
the  cylinder,  and  the  wheel.  She  may  study,  as  the  worm  does,  how  to  draw 
a  thread  fine,  and  like  the  spider,  how  to  make  the  web.  She  may  un 
derstand  the  mechanism  of  matter,  and  may  boast  an  Archimedes  and  a 
Jacquard  in  every  factory.  But  such  smartness  may  be  unable  to  com 
prehend  the  machinery  of  a  State.  It  may  bring — nay,  it  has  already 
brought — crash  and  confusion  where  better  minds  evolved  beauty  and 
harmony !  [Applause.]  It  is  not  true  that  New  England  is  smart  in 
the  sense  of  wisdom.  It  is  not  smart  to  be  informed  on  one  side  of  a 
question.  One-sided  information  is  the  blankest  ignorance.  A  man  who 
reads  the  "  Tribune  "  exclusively,  has  a  crazy  activity  of  mind.  [Laughter.] 
It  is  no  evidence  of  smartness  that  New  England  should  array  against 
her  the  ideas  of  the  rest  of  the  Union.  She  showed  no  smartness  in 
allowing  this  war  to  begin,  when  she  could  have  prevented  it.  She  has 
shown  none  in  her  estimate  of  the  formidable  character  of  the  rebellion. 
She  has  shown  none  in  her  Morrfll  tariffs  and  her  schemes  of  emancipa 
tion.  Is  it  smart  to  build  factories  and  destroy  the  very  sources  of  the 
cotton  which  runs  them?  Is  it  smart  to  overtax,  for  her  own  benefit,  a 
more  po\verfi^l  section,  as  she  has  the  West? 

But  it  is  neither  wise  nor  just  to  impeach  a  whole  people  for  the  mis- 


286  EIGHT  YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

doings  and  errors  of  a  part,  even  when  that  part  is  dominant.  While, 
therefore,  I  analyze  the  elements  of  New  England  society,  and  their 
relations  to  our  politics,  I  shall  not  confound  that  which  is  good  with  that 
which  is  mischievous.  In  colonial  times,  the  resentful  bigotry  of  an 
Endicott  was  relieved  by  the  amiable  character  of  a  Winthrop  ;  as  in  later 
times  Daniel  Webster  [cheers]  stands  like  a  granite  rock  repelling  the 
wave  of  New  England  isms.  [Cheers.]  I  would  not  confound  Rufus 
Clioate,  Chief  Justice  Shaw,  Benjamin  F.  Thomas,  Judge  Curtis,  and 
such  illustrious  men  [cheers],  with  Theodore  Parker,  Wendell  Phillips, 
Gov.  Andrew,  Charles  Sumner,  and  the  lesser  spawn  of  Transcendental 
ism.  [Hisses.]  The  one  class  have  ever  cultivated  the  graces  of  civil 
order ;  the  other  have  been  and  are  the  Marplots  of  the  Republic. 

I  speak  of  that  ruling  element,  which  even  before  it  reached  our  shores, 
while  it  was  in  exile  in  Holland,  while  it  ruled  in  early  days  at  Plymouth 
and  at  Boston,  and  which  has  since  been  distributed  all  over  our  country, 
presents  always  the  same  selfish,  pharisaical,  egotistic,  and  intolerant  type 
of  character.  We  find  it  in  our  politics  to-day,  as  the  Tudors  found  it  three 
hundred  years  ago,  ever  meddling  for  harm  ;  and  yet  seeking  its  own  safety 
by  concessions,  but  never  conceding  any  thing  for  the  welfare  of  others, 
unless,  thereby,  it  could  help  itself  in  larger  measure.  [Laughter  and 
cheers.]  Even  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  it  compromised  with  its  perse 
cutors,  by  agreeing  to  the  passage  of  a  bill  by  Parliament  which  shielded 
the  Presbyterians,  but  provided  a  punishment  for  the  Separatists.  Hop 
kins  closes  his  history  of  the  Puritans  of  that  time,  by  saying,  with  dis 
criminating  justice,  that  "we  do  not  claim  for  them  that  they  had  well- 
defined  and  correct  ideas  of  civil  liberty.  For  example,  the  dispensing 
power  of  the  sovereign — utterly  in  mockery  of  all  legislation  and  prac 
tically  a  canker  at  the  root  of  civil  liberty — seems  to  have  been  generally 
admitted  by  them."  Just  as  now,  when  it  suits  their  interest  and  object, 
they  clamor  for  the  proclamations  and  confiscations,  which  dispense  with 
the  Constitution. 

If  we  are  to  take  their  own  account  of  themselves,  as,  for  instance, 
when  garnished  with  the  rhetoric  of  Bancroft,  one  might  infer  that  they 
deserve  the  eulogy  of  Macaulay,  and  that  every  petty  presbyter  was  the 
vicegerent  of  the  Most  High,  specially  anointed  to  reproach  mankind  with 
its  shortcomings.  [Laughter.]  The  truth  is,  that  their  history,  as  writ 
ten  by  themselves,  has  been  glossed  with  falsehood.  Investigation  is  fast 
rubbing  off  the  lacquer,  and  the  rotten  framework  of  their  ethics  and 
politics  is  beginning  to  appear.  If  they  are  permitted  to  write  the  annals 
of  this  present  war,  the  truth  will  never  appear.  [Laughter.]  But  so 
momentous  a  conflict  as  this  has  awakened  better  minds  ;  and  in  the  his 
tory  which  posterity  will  read,  the  Puritans  will  play  the  part  of  intermed 
dling  destructives,  self-willed  and  intolerant,  beyond  any  characters  yet 
known  to  history. 

The  grand  key-note  of  the  Puritan  is,  that  "  slavery  "  was  the  cause 
of  this  war,  and  that  as  men  and  Christians  we  should  extirpate  it.  I 
do  not  intend  now  to  refute  this  fallacy.  Our  past  seventy  years  re 
fute  it.  Because  slavery  was  meddled  with,  and  returned  in  vio 
lence  what  was  given  in  wrath  and  malice,  it  does  not  follow  that 
it  was  the  cause  of  the  violence.  The  doctrine  of  the  French  Socialist 


CIVIL    WAE.  287 

Proudlion,  that  property  is  robbery  and  should  be  abolished,  is  a  sam 
ple  of  the  same  fallacy.  What  is  known  as  Abolition  is,  in  the  moral 
sense,  the  cause  of  the  strife.  [Cheers.]  Abolition  is  the  offspring  of 
Puritanism.  Until  Abolition  arose,  the  Union  was  never  seriously  men 
aced  ;  the  Constitution  was  never  endangered.  Puritanism  introduced 
the  moral  elements  involved  in  slavery  into  politics,  and  thereby  threw  the 
church  into  the  arena.  Our  Christianity,  therefore,  became  a  wrangler 
about  human  institutions.  Churches  were  divided  and  pulpits  desecrated. 
A  certain  class  in  a  certain  section  were  sinners,  and  were  damned  forever. 
Speculative  discussion  about  a  higher  law  than  the  organic  political  law, 
poisoned  politics  and  begat  asperities  of  sections.  The  first  harangue  of 
George  Thompson,  in  this  country,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Fessendens 
of  Maine  and  Garrisons  of  Massachusetts,  was  predicated  on  the  idea  that 
slavery  was  a  sin  against  God,  and  that  no  Christian  people  should  tol 
erate  it.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  letters  and  addresses  by  George  Thomp 
son,  during  his  mission  here.  In  his  first  address,  at  Lowell,  October  5, 
1834,  he  laid  down  the  dogmas  which  are  now  being  worked  out  in  dis 
union  and  blood.  He  said :  "  The  medium  through  which  he  contem 
plated  the  various  tribes  that  peopled  earth  was  one  which  blended  all 
hues.  Toward  sin  in  every  form,  no  mercy  should  be  shown.  A  war  of 
extermination  should  be  waged  with  the  works  of  the  devil.  .  .  Misguided 
patriotism  spread  the  alarm,  '  the  Union  is  in  danger.'  But  whom  should 
they  obey?  He  boldly  answered  God,  who  required  that  men  should  cease 
to  do  evil."  He  demanded  that  the  Constitution  should  be  changed. 
"  What  though  the  Union  was  in  danger  !  "  said  this  interloper  ;  "  there 
is  every  disposition  among  British  Abolitionists  to  extend  to  you  their 
sympathy,  their  counsel,  and  their  contributions."  We  are  now  getting  in 
overmeasure  the  sympathy,  counsel,  and  contributions  of  these  lovely  kins 
folk — the  English  Abolitionists.  [Cheers  and  laughter.] 

Following  this,  as  the  logical  consequence  of  these  higher-law  notions, 
came  another  volume,  which  I  hold  in  my  hand :  "  The  Constitution  a 
Pro-Slavery  Compact,  or  Extracts  from  the  Madison  Papers,  etc.,  selected 
by,"  whom  think  you  ?  Wendell  Phillips  !  [Hisses.]  In  this  volume 
it  was  shown,  as  I  quote  :  "  That  a  compromise  was  made  between  free 
dom  and  slavery  in  1787,  granting  to  the  slaveholder  distinct  privileges 
and  protection  for  his  slave  property,  in  return  for  certain  commercial  con 
cessions  on  his  part  toward  the  North."  It  proved  also  "  that  the  nation  at 
large  were  fully  aware  of  this  bargain  at  the  time,  and  entered  into  it 
willingly  and  with  open  eyes."  In  the  same  volume  are  collected  from 
the  speeches  of  Webster  and  Quincy  Adams  certain  passages,  showing 
that  slavery  had  its  protection  in  the  Constitution,  and  therefore  the  Con 
stitution  was  a  league  with  death  and  a  covenant  with  hell.  It  winds  up 
with  the  demand  :  "  No  Union  with  slaveholders."  Perhaps  Wendell  Phil 
lips  may  not  be  considered  by  some  as  a  representative  of  the  Republican 
party.  But  he  does  truly  represent  this  Administration,  with  its  procla 
mation  of  Abolition.  Look  at  the  votes  in  Congress  on  my  motion  on 
yesterday,  to  lay  on  the  table  a  resolution  by  Thaddeus  Stevens,  to  raise 
150,000  martial  negroes.  [Hisses.]  Why,  one  would  judge  that  the 
white  race  in  this  country  were  about  to  give  up  the  conflict  for  their 
Government.  I  cannot  see  any  special  difference  between  the  republican- 


288  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

ism  that  sustains  emancipation  proclamations  and  the  real  old  genuine 
Congo  Abolitionism.  [Cheers].  They  are  two  separate  links  of  the  same 
Bologna  made  out  of  the  same  canine  original.  [Great  and  continued 
applause  and  laughter.] 

I  refer  to  these  volumes  to  show  that  over  thirty  years  ago  the  popu 
lar  instinct  feared  that  the  Union  would  be  in  danger  from  these  insidious 
borings  of  these  Puritanic  reptiles.  The  riots  then  consequent  upon  such 
enunciations,  were  the  instinctive  outgushings  of  the  Union-loving  masses, 
fearing  a  speech  too  free  and  a  cause  too  reckless  for  the  stability  of  the 
Government.  These  extracts  are  the  germ  of  the  power  now  overshadow 
ing  the  land.  We  may  learn  from  them  that  the  religious  clement  was 
invoked  as  the  ally  of  this  crusade  against  slavery.  What  though  slavery 
was  a  part  of  the  practical  structure  of  society  South,  no  matter.  What 
though  it  was  a  part  of  the  Providential  order,  just  as  it  was  in  the  time 
of  Moses  and  the  Saviour,  no  matter.  Moses  sought  not  to  abolish  it ; 
Christ  and  his  apostles  meddled  not  with  it,  but  taught  those  general  rules 
by  which  it  might  be  regulated,  if  not  abolished,  outside  of  civil  govern 
ment.  But  a  new  evangel  was  preached.  Applying  the  old  doctrines  of 
Puritanism  to  our  established  order,  it  began,  on  moral  grounds,  to  un 
dermine  the  structure  of  our  civil  society.  It  might  at  first  sight  seem 
anomalous  that  New  Englanders,  who  have  prided  themselves  on  their 
local  self-government,  beginning  with  the  town  meeting,  should  play  the 
meddler  with  the  concerns  of  other  people  far  distant,  even  though,  to  do 
it,  they  took  the  name  and  doctrine  of  religion.  But  such  is  the  contra 
diction  of  this  Puritan  character,  that  whenever  it  enjoyed  a  blessing  it 
did  not  want  it  extended.  In  illustration,  allow  me  to  recur  to  the  colo 
nial  days. 

It  is  susceptible  of  proof,  that  the  reason  why  the  Pilgrim  Fathers 
could  not  live  in  peace  in  England,  was  their  tendency  to  propagate  their 
creed  offensively.  They  came  hither,  as  is  popularly  believed,  to  escape 
persecution.  When  they  came,  what  did  they  do  ?  The  Emperor  of 
France,  in  his  Idces  Napoleoniennes  (page  40),  answers  the  question  when 
he  says  that  it  is  "  almost  always  seen  that  in  times  of  trouble,  the  oppressed 
cry  out  for  liberty  themselves,  and  having  obtained  it,  they  refuse  to  grant 
it  to  others.  There  existed  in  England,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  a  re 
ligious  and  republican  sect,  which  being  persecuted,  resolved  to  go  be 
yond  the  seas  to  an  uninhabited  world,  there  to  enjoy  that  sweet  and  holy 
liberty  which  the  Old  World  refused  to  grant.  Victims  of  intolerance, 
certainly  these  independent  men  will,  in  the  new  country,  be  more  just 
than  their  oppressors  !  But,  inconsistency  of  the  human  heart !  the  very 
first  law  passed  by  the  Puritans  founding  a  new  society  in  the  State  of 
Massachusetts,  was  one  declaring  the  penalty  of  death  to  those  who  should 
dissent  from  these  religious  doctrines."  This  is  the  testimony  of  all  his 
tory,  as  I  shall  presently  show. 

Before  they  left  England,  King  James  said  of  them,  we  doubt  not  with 
some  truth,  that  they  were  pests  in  the  church  and  commonwealth.  When 
the .  Mayflower  and  the  Speedwell  were  on  the  sea  with  their  freight  of 
Pilgrims,  the  same  perversity  among  themselves  occurred.  Their  own 
historian,  Elliott  (p.  57),  says  that  these  vessels  contained  the  Pilgrim 
wheat  sifted  from  the  three  kingdoms ;  but  he  says  that  it  needed 


CIVIL   WAK.  289 

sifting  once  or  twice  more.  [Laughter.]  One  of  their  leaders  said : 
*'  Our  voyage  hither  (from  Holland  to  Dartmouth)  hath  been  as  full  of 
crosses  as  ourselves  of  crookedness."  [Laughter.]  Later,  in  1621,  he 
again  said,  "  that  they  were  yoked  with  some  ill-conditioned  people,  who 
will  never  do  good,  but  corrupt  and  abuse  others."  Oliver,  in  his  history, 
proves  that  the  captain  of  the  Mayflower  was  bribed  by  the  Dutch,  who 
had  settlements  in  this  vicinity,  not  to  land  the  Pilgrims  in  or  near  the 
Hudson,  where  they  intended  to  settle.  [Laughter,  and  a  voice,  "  That's 
true."]  If  there  are  any  praying  Knickerbockers  here — [cries  of  "  Plenty," 
and  laughter] — I  hope  that  I  may  not  be  considered  intrusive  upon  spiritual 
concerns,  if  I  suggest  that  it  is  not  too  late,  even  yet,  to  give  thanks  for 
that  pious  fraud  which  led  to  this  happy  riddance  !  [Great  laughter.] 

There  is  no  doubt  that,  when  exiled,  as  soon  as  they  learned  the  lan 
guage  in  Holland,  they  began  to  wrangle  with  the  Dutch  about  their 
creed.  This  will  account  for  the  anxiety  about  their  presence  in  the 
island  of  Manhattan.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Pilgrims  left 
Holland  on  account  of  religious  persecution.  The  reason  which  they 
gave  for  leaving  Ley  den  was  that  the  Dutch  would  not  observe  the  Sab 
bath,  and  the  fear  lest  their  children  should  grow  up  dissipated  Dutch 
men.  [Laughter.]  But  there  wrere  other  reasons.  They  anticipated 
poverty,  and  were  greatly  influenced,  as  js  sometimes  the  case  yet  with  their 
descendants,  by  worldly  considerations.  [Laughter.]  In  the  language  of 
the  time,  their  hopes  of  wealth  mingled  largely  and  freely  with  their  hopes 
of  heaven.  [Laughter.]  Adventure  toward  New  England,  by  the  northern 
company,  was  not  altogether  inspired  by  the  yield  of  gold  and  silver, 
though  visions  of  u  mines  which  lay  hid  in  the  earth  "  were  not  wanting. 
But  their  treasures  lay  in  the  sea,  and  their  divining  rod  held  its  hook  and 
line.  [Laughter.]  They  came  here  to  serve  God  and  catch  fish. 
[Laughter.]  When  the  Pilgrims  went  to  James  for  their  charter,  he 
asked  :  "  What  profits  do  you  intend?  "  On  being  told  "  Fishing,"  he  re 
plied,  ironically,  "  So  God  have  my  soul,  'tis  an  honest  trade,  'twas  the 
apostles'  own  calling."  [Laughter.]  It  is  a  pity  to  spoil  the  poetry  of  Mrs. 
Hemans  about  the  Pilgrims,  by  painting  them  as  fishermen,  who  expected 
to  find  silver  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish  they  took ;  but  so  it  is.  We  can 
say  of  them,  with  truth,  that  they  "  sacrificed  to  their  net,  and  burned  in 
cense  to  their  drag,  because  by  them  their  portion  is  fat  and  their  meat 
plenteous."  Their  descendants  have  not  forgotten  unto  this  day  to  urge 
that  the  government  of  the  Union  should  give  them  their  fishing  bounty. 
It  is  one  among  the  privileges  enjoyed  by  New  England  for  her.  godly 
and  apostolic  mode  of  life.  [Laughter.]  When  they  catch  a  cod,  out 
comes  a  tax  from  a  western  farmer !  But  when  we  catch  a  catfish  or  a 
sucker,  in  the  West,  we  do  not  get  any  bounty.  [Laughter.] 

The  Puritan  historian,  Elliott,  remarks  upon  the  second  ship  load  of  Pil 
grims,  called  Weston's  men,  that  they  were  utterly  demoralized  ;  so  much 
so,  that  one  of  their  number,  from  a  lack  of  principle,  while  gathering 
clams,  stuck  in  the  mud  and  died  there !  [Laughter.]  The  early 
annalists  do  not  forget  to  record  the  fact,  that  as  early  as  1626,  Captain 
Wollaston's  company  arrived ;  and  that  one  Morton  seduced  them  into 
quaffing  and  drinking,  dancing  and  frisking  ;  and  that  therefore  they  were 
no  better  than  atheists.  One  of  the  moral  triumphs  of  the  Puritans  con- 
19 

\ 


290  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

sists  in  their  having  cut  down  the  May  pole  of  these  revellers  and  captured 
their  junketing  captain. 

Tliis  tendency  to  make  government  a  moral  reform  association  appears 
all  through  their  history.  It  is  the  especial  curse  of  this  nation  at  the 
present  time.  This  anti-slavery  propagandism  springs  from  it.  Read  the 
barbarous  and  silly  codes  of  laws  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  pun 
ishing  Quakers  with  death  and  fining  persons  twelve  pence  for  smoking 
tobacco  within  two  miles  of  a  meeting  house  [laughter]  ;  or  the  penal 
laws  against  Dissenters  voting  and  against  walking  in  the  gardens  on 
Sabbath  ;  or  the  horrid  cruelties  against  witchcraft  and  the  puerile  enact 
ments  against  making  mince  pies  on  a  Sunday — [laughter] — which  ob 
tained  in  these  colonies,  where  the  foundations  of  Democratic  liberty  are 
said  to  have  been  established.  Is  not  the  same  spirit  yet  rife  which 
mingles  morals  and  politics  to  the  detriment  of  both  ?  The  Maine  liquor 
law  and  the  revenue  tax  law  on  liquors  spring  from  the  same  source. 
Regardless  of  the  rights  of  property  in  the  one  case,  or  the  spirit  of  a 
revenue  act  in  the  other,  New  England  bigotry  ever  strives  to  cure  men's 
morals  by  legal  penalties.  From  this  same  fountain  the  bitter  waters  of 
civil  strife  have  flowed.  In  this  moral  sense,  the  Constitution  is  now 
sought  to  be  construed,  administered,  or  nullified.  The  counsel  of  the 
War  Department,  Mr.  Whiting,  n»  Boston  attorney,  in  an  elaborate  dis 
cussion  of  the  war  powers  and  legislative  powers,  follows  the  Puritan 
doctrine,  by  upholding  the  "  right  of  the  Government  to  interfere  with 
slavery,  Mormonism,  or  any  other  institution,  condition,  or  social  status, 
into  which  the  subjects  of  the  United  States  can  enter,  whenever  such 
interference  becomes  essential  as  a  means  of  common  defence  or  public 
welfare."  It  is  always  understood,  of  course,  that  what  is  for  the  com 
mon  defence  and  public  welfare,  is  to  be  decided  by  the  Brahmins  of  Bos 
ton  !  It  being  also  further  understood  that  we  Soodras  of  the  West — being 
of  another  and  inferior  caste — are  obliged  to  confess  the  infallibility  of  the 
Brahminical  decision.  It  is  under  just  such  doctrines  that  proclamations 
of  anti-slavery  issue.  Other  sections  are  not  to  be  consulted.  Had  the 
central,  western,  and  border  States  been  consulted,  the  proclamation  never 
would  have  been  issued.  Giving  to  the  rebellion  more  vigor  and  unity, 
and  to  the  North  discouragement  and  division,  it  will  only  be  potent  for 
mischief  by  procrastinating  the  war.  This  is  the  direful  result  of  these 
intermeddling  purists  of  New  England.  But  the  proclamation  was  to 
end  the  war.  How?  By  the  paper  and  ink  used  in  its  printing?  By 
the  language  written,  or  the  sound  thereof?  No  !  But  as  a  military 
measure  !  How  ?  By  stirring  up  the  blacks  to  mutiny,  and  thus  stopping 
the  supply  of  rebel  labor  !  Well — two  weeks  are  gone.  We  see  no  sign 
yet.  Over  three  months  are  gone  since  the  threat  of  its  issue  ;  but  where 
are  the  results  ?  It  has  made  every  southern  man  and  woman  a  police 
force  to  guard  against  an  uprising  of  the  blacks  ;  but  the  great  rebellion 
lives.  The  war  goes  on.  Governor  Andrew  and  the  negroes  may  con 
tinue  to  dance  their  jubilees  with  their  head,  and,  as  usual,  to  contemplate 
its  results  with  their  heels.  What  idle  and  criminal  nonsense  to  expect  a 
rebellion  like  this  to  be  put  down  by  words — legislative  or  proclamative 
— words  drawn  from  the  passionate  and  wild  utterances  of  New  England 
Puritanism,  in  press  and  pulpit.  Rather  than  yield  this  censorship  over 


CIVIL   WAR.  291 

the  morals  of  these  States,  New  England  was  ready  to  welcome  this 
bloody  strife  of  brothers.  Nor  is  this  the  first  time  she  has  convulsed  the 
Republic,  to  propagate  her  dogmas.  In  1798,  the  same  overbearing  self 
ishness  was  exhibited.  In  a  letter  of  June  1st,  1798,  from  Mr.  Johnson 
to  John  Taylor  of  Roanoke,  it  is  said  : 

"  It  is  true,  that  we  are  completely  under  the  saddle  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecti 
cut  ;  and  that  they  ride  us  very  hard,  cruelly  insulting  our  feelings,  as  well  as  exhausting 
our  strength  and  subsistence.  Their  natural  friends,  the  three  other  Eastern  States,  join 
them  from  a  sort  of  family  pride,  and  they  have  the  art  to  divide  certain  other  parts  of 
the  Union,  so  as  to  make  use  of  them  to  govern  the  whole.  This  is  not  new  ;  it  is  the 
old  practice  of  despots,  to  use  a  part  of  the  people  to  keep  the  rest  in  order.  And  those 
who  have  once  got  an  ascendency  and  possess  themselves  of  all  the  resources  of  the  na 
tion,  their  revenues  and  offices,  have  immense  means  for  retaining  their  advantage." 

Could  there  be  a  truer  description  of  our  present  condition,  under  the 
lash  and  spur  of  this  fanaticism?  Speaking  of  this  condition  and  its 
causes,  an  eminent  New  England  divine  and  scholar,  Dr.  Lord,  well  re 
marks,  that  we  were  safe  in  the  Union  till  the  moral  balance  was  de 
ranged,  and  the  Church  and  State  fell  out  of  their  true  relations  to  each 
other  and  to  moral  government.  He  says  further : 

"  We  were  tempted  almost  unconsciously  into  that  snare  by  introducing  a  moral  ele 
ment — slavery — into  the  reckoning  of  politics,  and  thereby  brought  Church  and  State 
together  down  to  that  lower  level.  From  that  time  our  glory  has  departed.  Our  Chris 
tianity  has  become  secular,  and  our  secular  glory  has  been  dimmed  in  having  lost  the 
reflection  of  a  more  spiritual  light.  We  have  substituted  speculation  for  faith,  and  our 
speculative  discussions  have  been  degraded  into  angry  wranglings.  We  have  made  God 
and  man  to  exchange  places.  His  institutes  and  His  constitutions  we  have  interpreted  by 
the  '  higher  law '  of  our  own  conceits.  We  have  converted  the  Sovereign  Law  Giver  into 
a  politician.  We  have  discussed  by  our  own  standards,  and  determined  by  vote  how  it  is 
best  for  Him  to  carry  on  His  government  of  the  world.  We  have  inquired  not  what  He 
has  willed  and  done,  but  what  it  is  expedient  for  Him  to  will,  and  say,  and  do,  according 
to  a  master,  a  party,  or  a  school.  We  have  popularized  our  creeds,  measured  principles 
by  their  utilities,  and  God  himself  by  His  supposed  subserviency  to  our  ideas." 

I  propose  to  give  two  illustrations  of  these  truths.  The  first  is  in 
your  midst.  Every  Sabbath  you  have  a  sermon  from  Dr.  Cheever  [hisses], 
demonstrating  that  our  failures  in  battle  are  owing  to  the  displeasure 
of  'God,  because  of  the  sin  of  slavery.  [Cries  of  "  Oh  !  "]  He  makes 
slavery  the  terrible  crime  of  the  world  in  his  own  fancy,  and  reduces  Om 
nipotence  to  the  task  of  punishing  us  by  war  for  its  existence.  He  con 
veniently  forgets  that  there  is  another  side  to  the  battle,  and  that  when 
we  fail,  God  sides,  by  his  foolish  logic,  with  the  slaveholders.  [Laughter.] 
Parallel  with  this  logic,  turn  back  to  1676,  when  Randolph  came  to  New 
England  from  the  parent  Government,  to  find  out  the  cause  of  the  Indian 
war.  The  answer  of  the  Government  of  Massachusetts  furnishes  the 
cause.  It  officially  declared  that  "  these  are  the  great  and  provoking  evils 
for  which  God  hath  given  the  barbarous  heathen  commission  to  rise 
against  them :  For  men  wearing  long  hair  and  periwigs  made  of 
women's  hair.  [Laughter.]  For  women  wearing  borders  of  hair,  and 
for  cutting,  curling,  and  laying  out  their  hair,  and  disguising  them 
selves  by  following  strange  fashions  in  their  apparel.  [Laughter.]  For 
profaneness  in  the  people  in  not  frequenting  the  meetings,  and  others 
going  away  before  the  blessing  is  propounded.  [Laughter.]  For  suffering 
the  Quakers  to  dwell  among  them,  and  to  set  up  their  thresholds  by  God's 


292  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

thresholds,  contrary  to  their  old  laws  and  resolutions,  with  many  such 
reasons." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  original  defects  in  the  Puritan  pattern 
have  been  copied  to  this  day.  Like  the  Chinese  artist,  when  told  to  copy 
a  fine  and  costly  piece  of  porcelain  to  which  some  accident  had  happened, 
he  followed  his  instructions  with  such  great  skill  and  labor,  that  he  copied 
the  crack  which  extended  the  whole  length  of  the  model.  [Laughter.]] 
Another  fact  of  history  not  generally  accepted,  is  that  the  charter  granted 
by  King  James  to  the  Pilgrims,  was  for  the  express  purpose  of  enlarging 
the  gospel  by  the  conversion  of  the  Indians.  The  charter  was  intended 
to  start  a  rival  mission  to  that  of  the  Jesuits  among  the  red  men.  Of 
course,  commerce,  fishing,  and  the  gospel  were  to  go  hand  in  hand.  But 
the  sequel  showed  that  instead  of  evangelizing  the  Indians,  they  soon  be 
gan  to  regard  them  as  red  devils,  whose  extermination  was  a  great  duty, 
inasmuch  as  a  military  necessity  demanded  their  rich  lands.  [Cheers  and 
laughter.]  The  salvation  of  the  red  men  was  entirely  forgotten  in  their 
disputations  among  themselves  as  to  their  own  creeds.  Their  charter  was 
violated.  Turbulence  and  meddling  between  the  various  settlements  began 
to  prevail.  The  Church  ruled  with  an  iron  sceptre.  No  one  could  be  a 
voter,  if  he  were  not  a  church  member.  Although  the  agents  of  the  Puri 
tan  Bay  State,  when  they  departed  from  England,  prayed  for  the  prosperity 
of  their  "  dear  mother,"  the  Church  of  England,  they  wrere  ready  to  per 
secute  in  the  wilderness  as  well  those  who  adhered  to  that  Church  as  those 
who  dissented  from  themselves.  Under  the  rule  of  this  Puritan  church, 
every  form  of  surveillance  was  practised.  The  late  spy  system  in  New  Eng 
land  churches,  as  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  father  and  son,  at  Boston,  last 
year,  who  were  accused  of  disloyalty  before  a  board  of  deacons,  because 
they  were  Democrats,  finds  its  antetype  in  the  cruel  persecutions  of  the  Qua 
kers  arid  Baptists,  and  in  the  Salem  witchcraft.  There  was  then  a  general 
belief  that  Massachusetts  had  a  devil.  That  belief  prevails  yet,  outside 
of  Massachusetts.  [Laughter.]  The  miserable  fanatics  of  1691-'2,  who 
hunted  out  little  girls  and  poor  old  women  and  tried  them  for  witchcraft 
in  meeting  houses  before  godly  hypocrites,  have  their  imitators  in  the 
zealots  of  to-day — those  minions  of  power  who  spy  about  to  accuse  and 
arrest  those  who  differ  with  them  in  politics.  [Cheers.]  Cotton  Mather 
said  then  :  "  The  Ty  Dogs  of  the  Pit  are  amongst  us  ;  and  the  firebrands 
of  Hell  arc  used  for  scorching  us,  and  that  New  England  should  be  thus 
harassed  !  not  by  swarthy  Indians,  but  they  are  sooty  devils."  His  say 
ing  would  have  more  truth  repeated  now,  for  the  present  generation. 
The  same  egotistic  intolerance  is  observable  in  their  treatment  of  Roger 
Williams  in  1635.  His  persecutors  came  to  New  England  with  no  cor 
rect  ideas  of  religious  toleration.  Their  system  tolerated  no  contradic 
tion  and  allowed  of  no  dissent.  The  statutes  of  uniformity  of  England 
they  reenacted  here,  by  church  and  public  sentiment.  This  was  the 
source  of  those  dissensions  which  rent  their  own  youthful  Republic, 
and  whose  intolerant  spirit  has  produced  in  our  time  that  sectional 
alienation  which  deluges  the  land  in  blood.  The  New  England  Pilgrim 
drove  Roger  Williams  into  the  winter  wilderness,  as  he  drove  Mrs.  Hutch- 
inson  and  Coddington  to  the  same  exile,  for  differences  of  opinion  in 
religion.  He  enacted  laws  forbidding  trade  with  these  outlaws  for  con- 


CIVIL   WAK.  293 

science  sake.  Savages  were  more  kind  than  these  bigots  ;  for  the  Indians 
hospitably  received  the  victims  of  persecution.  Disdaining  the  Pope  as 
Antichrist,  and  hating  the  prelate,  these  harsh  Pilgrims  set  up  every 
little  vanity  of  a  preacher  as  their  pope  infallible,  every  village  Paul  Pry 
as  an  inquisitor,  and  every  sister  communicant  as  a  spy  for  the  detection 
of  heresy. 

It  is  an  unpleasant  task  to  recall  the  fierce  disputes  of  these  "  gospel 
magistrates."  The  trial  of  Vane  and  Coddington,  and  the  trial  of  Wain- 
wright  and  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  are  fruitful  in  suggestions  bearing  on  the 
present  time.  Eighty-two  distinct  heresies  were  passed  upon  at  one  time 
by  the  Synod  at  Boston.  In  these  isms  of  that  early  day,  you  Avill  find 
the  type  of  all  the  isms  of  the  present ;  including  free-loveism,  which  has 
its  counterpart  in  the  Familists.  The  history  of  Puritanism  is  a  catalogue 
of  murders,  maimings,  extortions,  and  outrages,  contrary  to  English  com 
mon  law,  and  against  every  notion  of  human  justice  and  liberty.  Search 
history  from  the  death  of  Abel  to  the  present,  and  you  will  find  no  such 
cruelties  as  those  practised  by  the  prejudiced,  dyspeptic  Puritans,  not  only 
upon  the  white  citizen  and  the  Indian,  but  upon  the  simple  Acadian  peas 
antry,  whose  distant  homes  they  invaded  and  destroyed.  That  iron-visaged 
man,  in  his  high-peaked  hat  and  ruff,  whether  he  played  the  part  of  mag 
istrate  and  elder,  or  that  of  Dugald  Dalgetty,  like  Captain  Miles  Standish, 
impelled  either  by  his  "  conscience  or  his  catarrh,"  rises  from  the  dark 
background  of  colonial  history,  the  most  hateful  image  ever  pictured  by 
Time,  the  more  detestable  because  many  of  his  victims,  as  in  the  far-off 
Acadia,  were  the  most  patient,  gentle,  and  tolerant  of  men !  No  wonder 
a  New  England  poet,  Halleck,  writes  : 

"  Herod  of  Galilee's  babe-butchering  deed 

Lives  not  on  history's  blushing  page  alone. 
Our  skies,  it  seems,  have  seen  like  victims  bleed, 

And  our  own  Ramahs  echoed  groan  for  groan  : 
The  fiends  of  France,  whose  cruelties  decreed 

Those  dextrous  drownings  in  the  Loire  and  Rhone, 
Were,  at  their  worst,  but  copyists,  second-hand, 
Of  our  shrined,  sainted  sires — the  Plymouth  Pilgrim  baud." 

Had  these  Pharisees  remained  in  England,  they  might  have  become 
martyrs  to  their  faith,  and  died  glorying  iu  religious  persecution.  But 
truth  demands  that  we  should  call  them  by  their  own  names  ;  they  were 
in  America  the  cruel  zealots  of  bitter  persecution,  the  more  odious  because 
they  professed  so  differently  ;  the  more  odious  still  because  they  were 
reproved  in  their  own  generation  by  better  and  nobler  men,  like  Williams, 
who  were  their  victims.  Were  there  not  so  much  of  suffering  and  malice 
attendant  upon  such  intolerance,  we  might  dismiss  it  all  into  that 


"  Limbo  broad  and  larcce,  and  called 

The  Paradise  of  fools." 

All  that  relieves  New  England  from  the  blackness  of  these  reproaches, 
is  her  splendid  zeal  and  sacrifice  for  independence  in  the  subsequent  cen 
tury.  Though  it  is  by  no  means  clear  but  that  she  would  have  rebelled 
against  the  best  government  on  earth,  or  even  a  commonwealth  of  angels, 
not  according  to  her  own  notions  ;  yet  the  mother  country  gave  her  cause, 
and  she  vindicated  it  with  spirit. 


294:  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

The  boast  that  the  Pilgrims  were  the  fathers  of  Democratic  liberty  in 
this  country,  is  absolutely  untrue,  unless  their  persecutions,  which  led  to 
it,  may  be  considered  the  cause  of  such  liberty.  Allow  me  to  adduce 
certain  facts  to  prove  what  I  allege: — New  Plymouth, which  remained 
separate  from  Massachusetts  Bay  until  1688,  is  pointed  to  as  the  exem 
plar  in  this  great  work  of  human  progress.  The  truth  is,  that  Plymouth 
received  its  privileges  in  a  mercantile  line  from  the  London,  Virginia,  and 
afterwards  from  the  Plymouth  Company  of  adventurers.  Thc^  left  Eng 
land  because  they  had  not  the  stamina  to  remain  and  contend,  like  the 
Hampdens,  Sidneys,  and  Miltons,  for  their  English  privileges.  Bradford, 
Brewstcr,  and  Carver  may  have  been  godly  men ;  but  there  were  men  in 
the  Mayflower  Avho  wished  a  larger  liberty  than  their  leaders  were  willing 
to  accord.  The  famous  "  Compact,"  signed  in  the  cabin  of  the  ship, 
llth  November,  1G20,  was  forced  from  the  superiors  by  their  inferiors. 
So  says  the  historian.  (Elliott,  104.)  I  quote  :  "  The  men  of  birth  and 
education  among  the  Pilgrims,  and  they  were  few,  did  not  intend  a  De 
mocracy.  They  had  no  faith  in  it."  The  social  distinction  between 
"  Mr."  and  ';  Goodman  "  still  continued.  Not  until  Williams  and  Cod- 
dington,  respectively  at  Providence  and  Newport,  R.  I.,  established  the 
first  Democracy  in  America,  with  the  majority  of  the  freemen  to  make 
laws,  and  upon  the  basis  that  no  man  should  be  made  criminal  for  "  doc 
trines,"  was  there  any  true  political  or  soul  liberty  in  New  England.  In 
Massachusetts,  according  to  Judge  Story,  five-sixths  of  the  people  were 
disfranchised  because  they  were  not  members  of  the  church.  The  code 
of  anti-democratic  sumptuary  laws  is  the  most  abominable  ever  enacted, 
not  merely  for  its  harshness  of  penalty,  but  for  its  caste  discrimination. 
It  seems  copied  from  the  Gentoo  code.  Indeed,  we  know,  as  Dr.  Holmes 
has  said,  that  there  are  yet  in  New  England  the  Brahmin  and  Soodra  castes. 
There  is  an  old  law  that  men  might  be  whipped  forty  lashes,  but  gentle 
men  never,  except  in  very  flagrant  cases.  The  excesses  of  apparel  were 
provided  against  rigorously.  Men  of  mean  condition  were  not  allowed  to 
dress  in  gold  and  silver  lace,  or  buttons,  or  points  at  their  knees,  or  to 
walk  in  great  boots  [laughter],  or  women  of  the  same  rank  to  wear  silks, 
hoods,  or  scarfs.  In  Harvard  College  penalties  were  meted  out  upon 
the  same  Gentoo  code  of  caste.  This  was  Democracy  in  Massachusetts. 
In  this  Commonwealth  the  directors  of  a  company  usurped  the  power  of 
rulers  and  magistrates.  The  elders  of  the  church  upheld  them.  John 
Cotton  wrote  with  pious  horror  that  "  Democracy  was  not  ordained  as  fit 
for  the  government  either  of  church  or  commonwealth  ;  as  for  monarchy 
and  aristocracy,  they  are  both  of  them  clearly  approved  and  directed  by  the 
Scriptures."  The  freemen  rose  against  both  Church  and  rulers,  and  after 
a  long  contest,  the  freemen  succeeded;  but  they,  too,  broke  the  charter. 
No  one  was  allowed  to  be  a  freeman  but  a  church  member,  and  the  State 
relapsed  into  a  bigoted  church  oligarchy.  Then  began  a  new  contest 
for  supremacy.  The  church,  of  course,  took  the  side  of  the  oligarchy, 
the  Puritan  leaders  still  struggling  against  the  growth  of  civil  liberty. 
The  republican  cast  into  which  the  government  was  finally  moulded,  was 
forced  upon  it  by  the  freemen,  in  spite  of  the  elders  and  magistrates. 
The  very  genius  of  their  religion  disfranchised  the  people,  and,  strange  as 
it  may  seem,  the  people  disfranchised  by  the  Church  owed  then  their 


CIVIL   WAE.  295 

final  emancipation  into  Democratic  liberty  to  the  compulsory  interposition 
of  Charles  II.  In-  the  seventeenth  century  Puritanism  muzzled  the  press 
and  sealed  the  lips  of  its  victims  and  enemies,  just  as  in  the  nineteenth 
the  same  inveterate  foe  of  Democracy  has  done  the  same  thing.  The 
wrong-headed  fanaticism  which  refuses  to  consider  the  Democratic  Gos 
pel  of  Love,  clung  to  the  Old  Testament  with  its  lex  taJionis  for  its  codes. 
Families  and  Baptists,  Quakers  and  deluded  people  who  gathered  sticks 
for  fire  on  a  Sunday,  were  all  punished  by  the  harsh  Jewish  code.  All 
other  crimes  not  punished  by  the  law  already  enacted,  were  to  be  attended 
to  according  to  the  old  Bible,  as  the  fanatic  interpreted  it,  the  "  higher 
law  "  of  their  own  private  judgment  being  the  canon  of  interpretation. 
This  is  the  boasted  Pilgrim  Democracy  ! 

Do  we  wonder  that  crimes  of  the  most  disgusting  and  heinous  charac 
ter  abounded  here?  In  1689,  the  elders  in  Synod  bewailed  the  great  and 
visible  decay  of  godliness.  Apostasies  and  degeneracies,  profaneness, 
debauchery,  cursing,  swearing,  lying,  gaming,  Sabbath-breaking,  idleness,, 
drunkenness,  and  uncleanness  constitute  the  frightful  picture  of  Puritanism 
before  a  half  century  of  rule  in  Massachusetts.  By  striving  to  make  the 
Church  political  they  did  not  make  the  State  religious.  The  smallest 
privilege  of  citizenship  was  only  obtained  through  grace  and  saintship, 
and  hence  general  hypocrisy  and  demoralization. 

It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  address  to  show  how  these  men  of 
God  treated  the  Indians.  Their  doctrine,  that  lands  unoccupied  by  agri 
culture  it  was  theirs  to  take,  "vacuum  domicilium,  cedit  occupanti"  was 
deduced  from  the  Jewish  code,  just  as  they  held  and  traded  in  slaves  by 
the  same  code.  What  a  civilization  is  this  to  be  commended  to  the  ac 
ceptance  to-day  of  twenty  millions  of  people !  The  rules  for  our  guid 
ance  in  national  trouble  can  never  come  from  such  a  source. 

What  has  New  England  done  for  the  country  ?  Much  every  way,  as 
Governor  Andrew  boasts  ;  but  chiefly  this,  as  I  think.  She  has  sent  to 
us,  as  to  New  York,  many  liberal-minded,  noble  men.  She  has  given  us 
Douglas  [cheers],  Seymour  [cheers],  McClellan.  [Great  cheering.] 
Liberal,  great,  but  liberal  and  great  because  they  have  repudiated  Pu 
ritan  teaching.  [Applause.]  Moreover,  she  gave  Samuel  Adams  for 
Revolutionary  counsel,  and  in  later  days,  Rufus  Choate  to  admonish  us  of 
the  dangers  of  sectionalism.  In  the  old  war  she  gave  Greene  and  Stark, 
neither  of  them  representing  the  Puritan  element.  Greene  was  a  Quaker 
of  Rhode  Island,  and  moved  South.  Stark  was  a  Democrat,  and  one  of 
his  descendants,  who,  last  year,  was  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Gov 
ernor  of  New  Hampshire,  is  now  battling  against  Puritanism  in  that  State. 
In  the  late  war  she  gave  us  General  Hull,  as  in  the  Revolution  General 
Arnold,  and  as  now  she  gives  us  General  Butler.  [Groans  and  hisses 
for  Butler.] 

Nc\v  England  voted  against  Jefferson  at  first,  and  her  pulpit  reviled 
him  as  it  did  Douglas.  She  voted  against  Jackson  at  first,  and  her  press 
slandered  him,  as  it  now  slanders  McClellan.  Her  Josiah  Quincys  de 
nounced  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  as  in  later  days  her  Sumners  have 
denounced  the  South.  Her  Mathers,  of  the  colonial  days,  thundered 
against  the  Quakers  and  Baptists  because  they  differed  in  doctrine,  just  as 
lately  Butler  closed  the  churches  of  New  Orleans  because  the  ministry 


296  EIGHT   YEAJSS    IN   CONGRESS. 

• 

would  not  pray  as  Butler — the  Saint — dictated.  She  denounced,  in  early 
times,  the  Indians  as  devils,  whose  lands  were  forfeit,  as  now  she  denoun 
ces  slavery,  while  her  humanitarians  covet  the  vacant  soil  and  her  specu 
lators  slip  through  our  lines  to  dicker  for  slave-produced  secession  cotton. 
["  That's  true."]  She  has  been  the  foe  to  the  Democracy  from  the 
days  of  the  Revolution  to  the  present  hour.  Her  Marseillaise  is  a  hymn 
of  apotheosis  to  John  Brown — a  horse-thief  and  a  murderer.  But  amidst 
all  these  conflicts  she  has  had  in  her  midst  a  minority  of  liberal,  stead 
fast,  and  patriotic  Democrats.  I  desire  to  be  understood  as  casting  no 
reflection  upon  this  heroic  minority,  soon,  I  trust,  to  become  a  triumphant 
majority. 

To  sum  up  the  general  aspect  of  this  Puritanism :  It  does  not  appear 
to  have  exemplified  but  rarely  the  duty  of  obedience  to  the  civil  magis 
trate.  It  never  consecrated  a  savage  to  God,  in  accordance  with  its  early 
charter.  Its  usurped  powers  were  never  used  to  quell  sedition  and  to 
strengthen  peace.  It  has  always  had  a  squint-eyed  intellect  which  re 
minds  me  of — [A  voice,  "Butler!"  cheering] — looking  with  two  optics 
to  one  selfish  point ;  and  a  eunuch  morality  ever  exclusive  and  revengeful. 
Its  solemn  pretenses  to  peculiar  godliness  were  the  general  rule,  while 
Liberty  of  Conscience  and  Democracy  in  polity  were  the  exception.  In 
stead  of  making  the  Church  the  tomb  of  dissensions,  it  made  the  Church  the 
theatre  of  strife,  and  carried  into  the  State  the  same  pretensions  and  bigotry 
which  it  illustrated  in  the  Church.  Its  literature  was  of  that  vain-glorious 
character,  which  yet  distinguishes  the  descendants  of  the  Puritans.  What  it 
has  gained  in  grace  of  style  it  has  lost  in  sincerity.  Mark  its  progress  from 
the  Mathers  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  to  the  Cheevers,  Beech- 
ers,  and  Parkers  of  to-day.  Swollen  with  spiritual  pride,  it  complacently 
asumed  to  read  the  designs  of  Providence  as  if  it  were  a  part  of  the  God 
head  !  Its  harshness  made  the  Conformist  into  a  Separatist,  the  Separatist 
into  an  Anabaptist,  the  Anabaptist  into  a  Quaker,  and  the  Quaker  into  an 
Infidel.  From  step  to  step  in  our  day,  it  has  run  the  round  from  ortho 
doxy,  beginning  with  Muckle wrath  Cheever,  brim  full  of  vengeance 
against  sins  "  he  has  no  mind  to,"  and  winds  up  in  that  perfect  infi 
delity  and  scepticism  which  Parker  preached  and  Emerson  sung.  Exalt 
ing  this  life  above  the  next,  it  is  not  content  with  the  order  of  Providence. 
It°must  assume  control  of  the  Chariot  of  the  Sun,  and  direct  all  its  shine 
and  shadow.  Alas  !  how  fatal  has  been  its%  direction  in  national  affairs, 
this  red  chaos  in  our  system  now  tells  !  Tlie  Puritanism  of  the  Wilder 
ness  of  1630  and  1G90  was  restricted  in  its  results  and  evils.  Now  we 
see  its  workings  on  a  grander  scale,  involving  a  Continent  in  its  conten 
tions.  It  is  a  power.  So  is  Satan.  It  is  intellectual.  So  are  his  minis 
ters.  It  has  pride,  stubborn  and  egotistical.  So  all  scourges  of  the  earth, 
have  had  from  the  Proconsul  of  Sicily  to  the  Proconsul  at  New  Orleans. 
Can  any  one  ask :  "  How  is  it  possible  for  such  a  civilization  to  be  the 
cause  of  so  great  a  civil  war?"  Because  it  is  the  parent  of  Abolition,  and 
because  Abolition,  such  as  Thompson  and  Phillips  taught,  found  the  right 
soil  for  their  bad  seed ;  therefore  it  flourished  to  the  overthrow  of  civil 
liberty,  by  the  intermeddling  with  State  institutions  and  social  and  labor 
systems,  entirely  alien  to  New  England,  under  the  Federal  Constitution. 
Holding  to  the  higher  law,  and  at  last  obtaining  office  under  its  banner, 


CIVIL   WAK.  297 

it  spread  distrust  and  apprehension  of  its  excesses  among  one-half  of  the 
States,  and  rebellion,  rash  and  unjustifiable,  was  the  result.  Men  of  no 
mark — mere  pigmies  compared  to  Webster  and  Choate — the  Andrews  and 
Sumners  of  the  day.  inflated  with  an  airy  sentimentalism,  began  their  prop- 
agandism,  to  make  saints  by  statute,  and  Paradises  out  of  politics.  They 
rallied  all  the  isms  to  the  one  baneful  and  hated  focus  of  Abolitionism, 
and  drove  the  half  of  the  nation  to  revolt  by  its  contumely  and  aggressions. 
Visionaries,  mistaking  their  fancies  for  the  Gospel  of  Kindness  and  Peace, 
intent  upon  the  restitution  of  the  blacks  to  a  liberty  they  only  give  them 
in  fancy,  destitute  of  all  practical  concern  for  Church  and  State,  they  have 
striven,  like  the  classic  sorceress,  to  give  a  new  youth  and  beauty  to  the 
State  by  dismembering  it.  [Applause.]  They  substitute  their  Platou- 
ism  for  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  thereby  lose  that  docility  and  humility 
which  are  the  very  essence  of  Christianity. 

At  the  New  England  dinner,  not  long  since,  Mr.  Beechcr  took  pride 
in  these  very  characteristics.  He  gloried  in  the  Yankee  because  "  he 
was  the  most  pr}ing  and  meddlesome  creature  in  God's  world,  the  born 
radical  of  modern  civilization,  the  pickpocket  of  creation  [laughter],  that 
to  leave  New  England  out  of  the  Union  was  to  leave  the  head  out  of  the 
body."  [Hisses.]  This  is  the  old  egotism.  It  is  the  same  supercilious 
ness  which  has  produced  so  much  scorn  South,  and  is  now  alienating  the 
West.  This  claim  of  all  the  intelligence  and  conscience  of  the  land, 
which  comes  from  Boston  and  is  echoed  from  Brooklyn,  is  the  offshoot  of 
the  same  pharisaical  cant,  which  has  sung  its  own  praises  through  its 
nasal  organ  for  three  hundred  years.  [Great  cheering  and  laughter.]  It 
has  assumed  peculiar  offcnsiveness  now  and  here  amidst  the  bloody  strife, 
of  which  it  is  a  prominent  contributor. 

I  propose  to  examine  the  source  of  this  egotistic  and  arrogant  philoso 
phy.  It  is  not  from  the  Gospel.  It  is  not  even  a  bad  exaggeration  of 
the  old  Puritanism,  for  that  had  many  harsh  and  rigid  virtues.  It  comes 
from  that  coterie  known  around  Boston  as  Transcendentalists.  Its  first 
organ  was  the  "  Dial."  Its  most  clever  exponent  was  Emerson.  It  has 
its  priests,  high  and  low,  including  the  great  Channing,  who  ministered 
in  holy  things  with  many  enlarged  graces  of  heart,  to  the  little  Channing, 
who  foists  himself  into  the  Senate  room  at  Washington  of  Sundays,  to 
preach  Abolition  hate  and  retail  such  slander  against  the  Democracy  as  the 
powers  at  Washington  seem  most  to  relish. 

But  what  is  this  transcendentalism  ?  Whence  is  it  ?  It  is  stolen  from 
Hindostan  by  Mr.  Beecher's  pickpocket  of  creation.  [Laughter.]  It  is 
the  emanation  of  Oriental  speculation.  This  I  will  prove.  The  smart 
Yankee  has  only  plagiarized  what  the  Vedas  contain,  what  the  Brahmins 
believe.  All  the  poetic  prose  and  prosaic  poetry  of  Emerson ;  all  the 
vague  generalities  of  Alcott ;  all  the  infidelity  of  Parker ;  all  the  senti 
mentalism  of  Phillips,  come  from  the  Dialogues  of  Kreeslma  and  Arjoon, 
called  Bhagavat-Geeta,  originally  written  in  the  Sanscrit,  translations 
of  which,  under  the  auspices  of  Warren  Hastings,  are  to  be  found  in 
some  of  the  libraries.  This  philosophy  cannot  be  called  Pantheism,  for 
that  absorbs  nature  and  man  in  God ;  it  is  not  Materialism,  for  that  ab 
sorbs  man  and  God  in  nature  ;  but  it  is  the  absorption  of  God  and  nature 
in  man,  and  that  man  the  Brahmin  or  the  Puritan  !  It  believes  in  nothing 


298  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

but  the  soul.  The  soul  of  man  is  God  and  nature.  No  matter,  no  color, 
nothing  but  the  soul  in  man  ;  he  is  all ;  it  is  all.  One  of  these  disciples 
— Alcott — holds  that  the  world  would  be  what  it  should  be,  if  he  were 
only  as  holy  as  he  should  be.  This  is  the  nearest  approach  of  this  sect 
to  humility.  He  being  all  in  all,  he  holds  himself  personally  responsi 
ble  for  the  obliquity  of  the  earth's  axis.  [Laughter.]  Do  you  wonder, 
therefore,  that  he  holds  himself  responsible  for  slavery  in  Carolina? 
Another,  Emerson,  holds  that  he  (Emerson)  is  God ;  that  God  is  every 
thing ;  therefore  he  (Emerson)  is  every  thing.  [Merriment.]  Do  you 
wonder,  therefore,  that  since  he  makes  the  negro  a  part  of  himself, 
he  holds  him  to  be  his  equal  ?  [Increased  laughter.]  Or  that  he  believes 
that  every  thing  is — as  he  is  ?  Do  you  wonder  at  the  imperturbable  im 
pudence  and  self-sufficiency  of  the  Puritan  thus  indoctrinated  ?  The  Hin 
doos  said  :  "  Rich  is  that  Universal  Self,  whom  thou  worshippest  as  the 
Soul."  The  same  sentiment  is  found  in  the  verse  of  Emerson  :  "  Noth 
ing  is  if  thou  art  not ;  thou  art  under,  over  all ;  thou  dost  hold  and  cover 
all.  Thou  art  Atlas  ;  thou  art  Jove  !  "  Do  you  wonder  that,  under  this 
philosophy,  the  Southern  men  and  mind  were  underrated?  That  the 
greatness  and  strength  of  Massachusetts  and  the  North  were  overrated? 
It  was  under  these  moonshiny  delusions  that  Governor  Andrew  foresaw 
the  roads  swarm  with  the  myriads,  who  never  trooped  to  the  war  [laugh 
ter],  and  that  Greeley  beheld  the  nine  hundred  thousand  rush  to  Father 
Abraham,  who  are  yet  to  rush.  [Laughter.]  Turn  again  to  the  Hin 
doo,  and  hear  what  the  Puritan  saith  in  the  Sanscrit.  I  read  from  the 
Geeta ;  but  you  will  think  it  is  the  "  universal  Yankee,"  speaking  of 
himself:  "  I  am  the  sacrifice,  the  worship,  the  fire,  the  victim,  the  father 
and  mother  of  this  world,  the  grandsire  [laughter],  the  preserver.  I  am 
the  holy  one,  only  worthy  to  be  known.  I  am  the  hope  of  the  good,  the 
comforter,  the  creator,  the  witness,  the  asylum.  I  am  generation  and  dis 
solution.  [Laughter.]  I  am  sunshine.  I  am  rain.  I  now  draw  in  ;  I 
now  let  out.  I  am  death  and  immortality.  I  am  entity  and  nonentity. 
[Laughter.]  I  am  the  beginning,  the  middle,  and  the  end.  [Merriment.] 
Among  the  faculties,  I  am  the  mind."  Just  what  Mr.  Beecher  holds. 
[Laughter.]  "  Among  the  animals,  I  am  reason  ;  among  the  mountains, 
Himalaya  ;  amongst  the  floods,  I  am  the  ocean  ;  amongst  elephants,  I  am 
the  everlasting  big  elephant.  [Great  laughter.]  Of  all  science,  I  am 
the  knowledge  of  the  ruling  spirit ;  and  of  all  speaking,  lam  the  oration." 
[A  voice  :  "  Sumner."  Laughter.]  "Amongst  rulers,  I  am  the  rod." 
[A  voice  :  "  That  is  Butler."  Laughter.]  "  Amongst  those  who  seek 
for  conquests,  I  am  the  policy."  ["  Abolition."  Laughter.]  "All  the 
qualities  incident  to  beings,  such  as  reason,  truth,  humility,  meekness, 
equality,  courage,  fame,  shame,  renown,  and  infamy,  come  from  me  ! " 
A  Brahmin,  that  is,  one  who  lives  in  or  near  Boston,  can  attain  unto 
these.  "  All  these  qualities,"  says  the  Hindoo,  "  hang  on  me,  as  jewels  and 
gems  on  a  string,  for  there  is  not  any  thing  greater  than  I."  How  is  he 
to  attain  all  these?  The  Hindoo  again  tells  us :  "  He  should  sit,  with  his 
mind  fixed  on  one  object  alone  " — the  negro,  I  suppose  [laughter] — "  in 
the  exercise  of  his  devotion  for  the  purification  of  his  soul,  keeping  his 
head,  his  neck,  his  body,  steady  without  motion,  his  eyes  fixed  on  the 
point  of  his  nose" — cross*-eyed,  you  see  [laughter] — "  looking  at  no  other 


CIVIL   WAE.  299 

place  around."  Thus,  and  not  otherwise,  he  sees  heaven  at  the  tip  of  his  own 
nose.  [Laughter.]  Were  it  not  that  these  directions  are  written  in  Book 
VI.  of  the  lectures  of  Kreeshna,  one  would  imagine  they  were  written  by- 
Cotton  Mather  about  himself,  or  a  Boston  philosopher  in  and  about  the 
Hub  of  the  Universe.  [Laughter.]  It  was  by  following  these  directions 
of  the  Vedas  that  John  Fisher  Murray,  an  Irish  wit,  was  enabled  to  prove 
that  black  was  white,  and  by  a  process  of  unification  which  will  com 
mend  itself  to  Boston  Transcendentalism.  "  Black,"  says  he,  u  is  one 
thing  and  white  another  thing.  You  don't  conthravayne  that?  But  every 
thing  is  aither  one  thing  or  the  other  thing.  I  defy  the  Apostle  Paul  to 
get  over  that  dilimma.  Well,  if  any  thing  be  one  thing,  well  and  good ; 
but  if  it  be  another  thing,  then  it's  plain  it  isn't  both  things  [laughter], 
and  so  can't  be  two  things ;  nobody  can  deny  that.  But  what  can't  be 
two  things,  must  be  one  thing ;  ergo,  whether  it's  one  thing  or  another 
thing,  it's  all  one.  [Great  laughter.]  But  black  is  one  thing  and  white 
is  another  thing  ;  ergo,  black  and  white  is  all  one."  [Laughter.]  Quod 
erat  demonstrandum,  that  a  negro  is  as  good  as  a  white  man.  [Laugh 
ter.]  The  ordinary  perception  of  mankind  would  be  shocked  at  such  a 
conclusion,  but  a  Puritan  Transcendentalist  accepts  it  as  a  part  of  the 
soul  unity,  which  he  derives  from  looking  with  solemn  introspection  into 
his  own  nature.  This  is  what  imparts  to  Transcendentalism  such  a  sub 
lime  egotism.  All  that  is  great  in  invention,  in  letters,  in  reason,  in  war, 
must  emanate  from  its  "  over  soul."  It  peeps  into  all  things,  and  some 
others  ;  "  de  omnibus  rebus  et  quibusdam  cdiis.  Mr.  Beecher,  in  describ 
ing  the  universal  meddlesomeness  of  the  Yankee,  has  but  the  voice  of 
Brahma,  which  Emerson  echoed,  when  he  wrote  : 

"  There  is  no  great  and  no  small 
To  the  soul  that  maketh  all, 
And  where  it  cometh,  all  things  are, 
And  it  cometh — everywhere."     [Laughter.] 

The  "  Evening  Post"  wonders  how  a  Union  hereafter  is  possible,  with 
New  England  out !  "  Can  there  be,"  it  asks,  "  a  head  without  brains,  or 
a  body  without  heart?  Where  there  is  a  school,  there  is  New  England ; 
a  free  press,  New  England  ;  a  lecture  room,  New  England  !  Can  these 
be  left  out,  and  a  soul  remain  ?  "  Some  day,  this  dream  of  Puritan  com 
placency  may  break,  and  the  fact,  hard  and  granite  as  her  hills,  remain, 
not  that  she  is  left  out,  but  that,  by  the  action  of  many  of  her  own  sons  in 
the  North-West,  whose  transplanting  has  improved  the  stock  and  enlarged 
the  culture,  her  peculiar  ideas  are  limited  in  their  effect  and  scope  to  her  own 
borders.  Her  heathen  philosophy  cannot  live.  As  Dr.  Lord  has  recently 
said  :  "  Its  gaudy  sophistry  took  its  natural  popular  effect ;  it  assumed  to 
be  arrogant,  insulting,  and  encroaching.  It  was  envious  of  God's  appoint 
ments — the  family,  the  State,  the  church ;  and  it  scrupled  not  to  assail 
their  blood-cemented  foundations."  In  the  press,  lecture,  pulpit,  and  finally 
in  Congress  and  the  Executive  Departments,  it  has  pursued  its  way  and 
enveloped  this  nation  in  garments  of  blood.  It  will  only  awake,  I  fear, 
from  its  gory  dream,  when  it  is  left  weeping  over  the  victims  of  its  own 
delusions.  This  philosophy  has  a  deeper  and  worse  aim  than  that  of  up 
rooting  the  State.  Already  it  has  sown  the  seed  of  dissolution  in  the 
church,  and  scepticism  in  all  creeds.  Parker,  following  the  Hindoo  and 


300  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Emerson,  found  what  he  called  the  "  out-ness  of  God  to  be  the  in-ncss  of 
man,  and  so  God  works  with  us."  Or  in  other  phrase,  since  God  is  man 
and  nature  man,  "many  a  savage,"  says  Parker,  "his  hands  smeared 
over  with  human  sacrifice,  shall  come  from  the  East  and  West,  and  sit 
down  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  with  Moses  and  Zoroaster,  with  Socrates 
and  Jesus."  Thus  we  are  taught  in  shocking  blasphemy  that  the  worst 
method  of  life  will  answer  as  well  as  the  best.  And  again,  he  enjoined  his 
disciples  "  to  obey  God,  as  the  spirituality  of  spirit,  which  is  immanent  in 
all  things  ;  in  the  blush  of  the  rose  and  in  the  bite  of  the  dog ;  in  the 
breath  of  the  breeze,  and  in  the  howl  of  the  maniac.  Believe  that  the 
Divine  incarnation  is  in  all  mankind  ;  therefore,  imitate  it,  and  if  we  sin, 
ask  no  forgiveness."  Nor  need  we  wonder  that,  from  the  same  source, 
the  Intercessor* for  Mankind,  the  SAVIOUR,  is  sneered  at  as  "  the  Attorney 
by  which  we  are  to  approach  the  Infinite."  ;  or,  that  when  such  systems 
have  their  devotees  in  religion,  Abolition  has  its  devotees  in  political 
ethics  ;  or  that  a  spirit  of  hostile  encroachment  should  mark  the  career 
of  this  cabal  of  egotistic  zealots,  and  that  State  lines  are  obliterated  and 
constitutional  faith  dissolved  as  figments  in  their  crazed  imaginations. 
Alas  !  this  war  is  teaching  the  people,  too  late,  that  the  Federal  Union  is 
not  to  be  carried  on  by  the  dogmas  of  Brahma,  or  the  sophisms  of  Emer 
son,  or  the  infidelity  of  Parker.  We  are  taught,  too  late,  that  a  system 
of  public  morality  prevalent  in  one  section,  is  not  the  guide  of  duty  under 
the  Constitution ;  that  the  inexorable  laws  of  economy,  of  climate,  soil, 
production,  supply,  and  demand,  are  not  to  be  overruled  by  the  poetry  of 
Whittier  about  the  oppressed  black,  or  the  vagaries  of  Sumner  about  the 
barbarism  of  slavery. 

I  have  thus  traced  the  history  and  philosophy  of  Puritanic  egotism  and 
self-sufficiency,  which  has  fomented  trouble  in  distant  domestic  affairs.  I 
have  already  detained  you  so  long  that  [cries  of  "  Go  on  !  go  on  !  "  from 
all  parts  of  the  house]  I  will  conclude  with  some  practical  reflections  on 
the  consequences  of  such  conduct.  When  the  Constitution  was  made,  there 
were  two  kinds  of  interpretation  which  followed  it :  that  of  New  England, 
which  tended  to  centralize  power,  and  that  of  Virginia,  which  decentral 
ized  power.  The  one  encroached  on  State  rights ;  the  other  restrained 
the  encroachment.  Under  the  contention,  New  England,  with  her  per 
sonal  liberty  bills  and  higher  law,  alarmed  the  South  ;  and  the  South,  in 
return,  pushed  her  interpretation  into  actual  and  violent  secession.  New 
England  got  her  advantages  in  the  Constitution  for  yielding  its  protection 
to  slavery.  They  Were  commercial  and  profitable.  She  has  yet  her  tariff 
and  bounties.  She  has  ever  made  the  most  out  of  the  Federal  Union. 
When  she  was  called  on  to  make  sacrifices,  as  in  the  wars  of  this  country, 
she  was  loth  to  make  them.  There  are  even  now  1G.OOO  deserters  from 
the  Massachusetts  regiments.  She  forgot  her  hatred  of  State  rights  in 
the  late  war  with  Great  Britain.  Her  Hartford  Convention  was  called  to 
endorse  the  policy  of  Governor  Strong,  of  Massachusetts,  that  no  forcible 
draft,  conscriptions  or  impressments  should  be  made  by  the  General  Gov 
ernment  upon  the  States.  That  Governor  refused  to  accede  to  the  Presi 
dent's  requisition  for  troops,  to  be  used  by  the  President  in  a  war  against 
England,  which  he  could  not  approve.  This  smacks  somewhat  of  the  late 
conduct  of  Governor  Andrew,  when  he  sought  to  impose  conditions  as  to 


CIVIL   WAE.  301 

troops  in  the  present  conflict.  The  famous  Hartford  Convention  was  a 
secession  body.  Its  address  urged  that  '•  some  new  form  of  Confederacy 
should  be  substituted  among  those  States  which  shall  intend  to  maintain  a 
Federal  relation  to  each  other  ;  "  and  concluded  with  the  usual  Puritanic 
appeal  to  "a  higher  authority  than  any  earthly  government  can  claim." 
Later,  in  the  Mexican  "War,  we  know  how  prompt  the  Puritans  were  to 
seek  a  refuge  from  national  duty  in  the  doctrine  of  Peace  and  Disunion ; 
we  know  how  Charles  Sumner  had  found  the  "  true  grandeur  of  nations" 
to  consist  in  arbitration  and  peace  under  every  possible  condition  of  things  ; 
and  how  the  press  and  the  poets  of  New  England  laughed  at  the  sergeant 
of  the  United  States  when  he  beat  for  recruits.  By  pasquinade  and  from 
pulpit,  the  war  was  discouraged  and  enlistments  checked.  But  now,  when 
the  present  war  is  to  be  carried  on  against  the  South  ;  when  Puritanism 
is  to  be  gratified  by  the  death  of  slavery ;  when  the  nation  is  rocked  by 
the  throes  of  civil,  and  not  foreign  war,  the  same  old  vindictive  intolerance 
is  aroused  which  made  the  early  Puritans  so  infamous.  There  is  aroused 
the  same  desire  to  confiscate,  which  changed  the  red  men  into  sooty  devils, 
that  the  saints  might  enter  in  and  possess  the  lands  of  the  Pequods ;  and 
the  same  arrogant  assumption  of  intellect  is  quickened  which  will  never 
cease  till  it  assassinates  the  Republic.  New  England  may  thrive  for 
awhile  on  the  war  contracts,  which  keep  her  people  busied  and  money 
plentiful.  So  long  as  this  seeming  prosperity  is  kept  up,  her  cry  for 
slavery  extermination  will  be  loud.  But  a  day  of  reckoning  is  near  at 
hand.  Her  insane  propagandism  is  working  out  its  fruits.  The  people 
in  the  last  elections  have  expressed  their  detestation  of  her  doctrines. 
Even  the  people  of  New  England,  from  Maine  to  Connecticut,  will  begin 
to  consider  their  position.  The  popular  verdict  is  not  yet  tully  heeded  at 
Washington.  The  infatuation  of  Congress  continues.  But  the  Govern 
ment  and  its  administrators  have  felt  the  shock,  and  a  dead  lock,  political 
and  military,  is  the  result.  Montesquieu  has  well  described  ourcondition  : 
"  There  is  in  every  nation  a  general  public  spirit  upon  which  power  itself 
is  founded.  When  that  power  shocks  that  public  spirit,  the  shock  is  com 
municated  to  itself,  and  it  necessarily  comes  to  a  standstill."  Confisca 
tions  and  Proclamations  have  produced  this  terrible  paralysis  of  the  State. 
When  the  people  arouse  from  this  terrible  condition,  and  fully  realize  Avhat 
it  is  and  who  are  its  authors,  the  anathema  against  the  perfidious  parricides 
of  the  North  will  hardly  be  less  than  that  which  followed  the  violence  of 
the  Southern  traitors  against  the  majority  of  the  nation.  [Cheers.] 

In  conclusion,  Democrats  of  New  York,  you  have  traced  with  me  the 
footprints  in  history  of  this  inveterate  foe  to  our  Democracy,  the  Puritan 
ism  of  New  England.  You  have  seen  its  bitter  waters  gushing  in  the 
wilderness  from  Plymouth  Rock,  and  running  through  history  in  the  same 
old  channel,  until  its  latest  movement  now  for  negro  emancipation.  You 
have  seen  it  poisoning  the  pulpit  and  the  press  with  its  dogmas.  You 
have  seen  it  silently  boring  like  a  reptile  into  the  mounds  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  You  have  seen  the  barriers  give  way  and  the  flood  rush  in — a  sea 
billowy  with  fraternal  blood.  It  has  obtained  power,  arms.  We  know 
how  it  has  used  them,  and  at  what  cost.  War  has  been  called  a  whole 
sale  gravedigger,  who  works  for  wages  !  What  wages?  Ask  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury,  now  in  your  city  to  raise  fresh  hundreds  of  millions. 


302  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

At  what  sacrifice  ?  Ask  those  who  are  bereaved  and  those  who  are  wounded. 
Ask  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  Northern,  not  to  count  Southern  men,  who 
have  perished  in  the  field  or  hospital.  Alas  !  they  cannot  answer.  Their 
rude  graves  in  the  distant  South  answer.  Fortunes  totter ;  industry  is 
palsied  ;  bankruptcy  threatens,  for  speculation  riots  around  your  moneyed 
centres.  The  tax  gatherer,  the  embalming  doctor,  the  nurse,  and  the  army 
scavenger  play  their  part  in  this  great  drama,  and  behind  it  all  stands 
the  gibbering  fiend  of  Abolition,  determined  to  make  the  war,  begun  in 
honor  and  patriotism,  end  in  hate  and  disunion !  It  has  already  deter 
mined  not  to  allow  the  Democracy  to  save  the  Union.  But  by  the  God 
of  our  fathers  !  though  the  Union  be  shattered  ;  though  its  bleeding  frag 
ments  may  seek  temporary  alliances  East  and  West,  the  Democracy  will, 
if  it  take  a  lustrum  to  do  it,  fight  under  the  old  constellated  banner, 
making  its  order  of  march  an  order  of  battle,  for  the  restoration  of  THE 
UNION  AS  IT  WAS,  by  the  supremacy  of  THE  CONSTITUTION  AS  IT  is ! 
[Tremendous  cheering,  during  which  the  audience  rose  to  their  feet. 
Three  cheers  were  given  for  the  speaker  and  three  for  Ohio.]  Let  the 
Middle,  and  Western,  and  border  States  firmly  move  on  in  the  work. 
The  dissonant  din  of  these  ideologists  of  New  England  will  be  drowned 
in  the  popular  voice ;  the  fratricidal  hate  they  have  engendered  will  be 
assuaged,  and  into  the  lacerated  bosom  of  this  nation  will  be  poured  the 
hallowed  and  healing  spirit  of  mutual  confidence  and  conciliation.  Thus 
will  the  nation  reform  itself  I  [Tremendous  and  continued  applause.] 

Mr.  Cox  closed  by  saying,  that  such  confidence  and  conciliation  could 
never  come  from  the  spirit  of  Puritanism  ;  but  thanks  to  New  England — 
aye,  to  New  England — a  better  and  more  Christian  spirit  had  been  en 
shrined  in  the  poetry  of  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  a  son  of  Massachusetts, 
whose  beautiful  lyric  upon  Carolina  he  had  been  requested  to  repeat  to 
the  audience  by  a  New  York  Democrat  now  in  Washington,  Frederick 
S.  Cozzens,  himself  an  author  known  to  the  whole  country.  ^Mr.  Cox 
then  recited  the  following : 

"  She  has  gone — she  has  left  us  in  passion  and  pride — 
Our  stormy-browed  sister,  so  long  at  our  side  ! 
She  has  torn  her  own  star  from  our  firmament's  glow, 
And  turned  on  her  brother  the  face  of  a  foe  ! 

"  0,  Caroline,  Caroline,  child  of  the  sun, 
We  can  never  forget  that  our  hearts  have  been  one ; 
Our  foreheads  both  sprinkled  in  Liberty's  name, 
From  the  fountain  of  blood  with  the  finger  of  flame  ! 

"  You  were  always  too  ready  to  fire  at  a  touch  ; 
But  we  said,  '  She  is  hasty — she  does  not  mean  much.' 
We  have  scowled  when  you  uttered  some  turbulent  threat ; 
But  Friendship  still  whispered,  '  Forgive  and  forget.' 

"  Has  our  love  all  died  out  ?     Have  its  altars  grown  cold  ? 
lias  the  curse  come  at  last  which  the  fathers  foretold  ? 
Then  Nature  must  teach  us  the  strength  of  the  chain 
That  her  petulant  children  would  sever  in  vain. 

"  They  may  fight  till  the  buzzards  are  gorged  with  their  spoil, 
Till  the  harvest  grows  black  as  it  rots  in  its  soil, 


CIVIL   WAK.  303 

Till  the  wolves  and  the  catamounts  troop  from  their  caves, 
And  the  shark  tracks  the  pirate,  the  lord  of  the  waves. 

"  In  vain  is  the  strife  !     When  its  fury  is  past, 
Their  fortunes  must  flow  in  one  channel  at  last ; 
As  the  torrents  that  rush  from  the  mountains  of  snow 
Roll  mingled  in  peace  through  the  valley  below. 

"  Our  Union  is  river,  lake,  ocean,  and  sky ; 
Man  breaks  not  the  medal  when  Go,d  cuts  the  die  ! 
Though  darkened  with  sulphur,  though  cloven  with  steel, 
The  blue  arch  will  brighten,  the  waters  will  heal. 

"  0,  Caroline,  Caroline,  child  of  the  sun, 
There  are  battles  with  fate  that  can  never  be  won ! 
The  star-flowering  banner  must  never  be  furled, 
For  its  blossoms  of  light  are  the  hope  of  the  world  ! 

"  Go,  then,  our  rash  sister  !  afar  and  aloof, 
Run  wild  in  the  sunshine  away  from  our  roof ; 
But  when  your  heart  aches  and  your  feet  have  grown  sore, 
Remember  the  pathway  that  leads  to  our  door  ! "     [Applause.] 


THE  CONSCRIPTION  BILL. 

EXEMPTION    OP    THE    CLERGY — SLANDERS    UPON     THE    DEMOCRACY    REPELLED STATE    RIGHTS 

AS   DEFINED   BY   MADISON   AND   HAMILTON — EFFECT   OF   THE   CONSCRIPTION. 

ON  the  26th  of  February,  1863,  the  House  having  under  consideration 
the  bill  to  call  out  the  national  forces,  Mr.  Cox  said  :  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
obliged  to  the  Chair  for  the  prompt  manner  in  which  he  has  protected  my 
right  to  the  floor,  and  for  the  emphasis  with  which  he  brought  down  the 
gavel  for  that  purpose.  [Laughter.]  I  hope  now  that  I  shall  not  be 
further  interrupted.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  somewhat  amused  and  in 
structed  by  what  fell  from  my  reverend  brother  [Mr.  FESSENDEN]  from 
Maine,  who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  It  was  proper  that  he  should  defend 
his  clerical  brethren.  But  after  the  high-wrought  eulogy  which  he  uttered 
in  their  behalf,  I  was  surprised  at  the  lame  conclusion  at  which  he 
arrived.  How  could  he  as  a  patriot  argue  that  so  valuable  a  class  of 
citizens  should  be  excluded  from  serving  their  country  in  the  army  ?  If 
they  are  as  worthy  and  as  patriotic  as  he  believes,  will  they  seek  exemp 
tion  ?  The  very  argument,  combining  with  other  reasons  which  I  may 
give,  but  from  which  he  will  doubtless  dissent,  compel  me  to  oppose  the 
exemption  of  the  clergy  from  this  sweeping  conscription.  There  are 
some  clergymen  for  whom  I  have  an  unbounded  reverence  and  respect — 
men  who  preach  the  gospel  of  "  peace  on  earth  and  good  will  to  men." 
They  do  not  turn  the  living  word  into  reproach  by  "  vain  disputations." 
They  do  not  create  jar  on  earth  and  ill  will  to  men.  From  the  first  settle 
ment  of  the  region  from  which  the  gentleman  comes,  down  to  the  present 
time,  the  largest  part  of  the  clergy  seem  to  have  been  specially  com 
missioned,  in  their  own  opinion,  to  read  lectures  upon  political  matters  to 
the  people  of  this  country,  and  to  all  mankind.  They  have  descended 
from  their  spiritual  elevation  to  grope  amid  the  passions  and  cor- 


304  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

ruptions  of  partisan  strife.  They  have  thus  divided  the  churches,  and 
degraded  the  mission  left  them  by  their  loving  Master. 

Mr.  S.  C.  FESSENDEN.  I  challenge  the  gentleman  to  produce  the 
proof  of  that  assertion. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  refer  the  gentleman,  for  the  proof,  to  New  England  his 
tory,  from  the  days  of  Cotton  Mather  and  the  burning  of  witches,  down  to 
the  present  unhappy  time.  Why,  sir,  let  the  dominant  clergy  of  New  Eng 
land  continue  to  have  their  \»ay  now,  as  they  had  it  once  when  Catholics, 
Episcopalians,  Baptists,  and  Quakers  were  persecuted,  punished,  exiled, 
and  murdered  for  conscience  sake,  and  the  gentleman  will  live  to  witness, 
perhaps  with  transport,  Episcopalian  and  Catholic  clergymen  garrotcd  and 
burned  in  the  streets  of  Boston.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  S.  C.  FESSENDEN.     Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  now? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  no  objection,  if  the  gentleman  wants  to  ask  a  ques 
tion. 

Objected  to  by  a  member  from  the  Republican  side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Cox.     That  objection  does  not  come  from  this  side. 

Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  a  certain  class  of  preachers  to  whom  gentlemen 
on  this  side  of  the  House  are  under  no  special  obligations.  They  have 
prayed  us  frequently  into  the  nethermost  abysses.  [Laughter.]  And 
•why?  Because  we  belonged  to  that  old  Democratic  party  which  has 
been  coeval  with  this  Government — which  has  never,  as  an  organization, 
been  unfaithful  to  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  whole  country,  and  which 
has  never  lost  its  chivalric  respect  for  the  safeguards  and  immunities  of 
the  Union  and  Constitution.  Simply  to  have  affiliations  with  that  party 
has  always  been  sufficient  to  bring  down  the  anathemas,  by  "  bell,  book, 
and  candle,"  of  those  clergymen  who  now,  through  the  ministerial  member 
from  Maine,  seek  exemption  from  the  inconvenient  consequences  of  the 
troubles  which  they  have  themselves  been  mainly  instrumental  in  bring 
ing  upon  our  beloved  land.  Long  before  the  radical  politicians,  North 
and  South,  began  to  rend  the  nation  in  their  hate,  these  preachers  had 
riven  the  churches  in  their  crazed  and  demoniac  fury.  I  ask  you,  men  of 
the  South  yet  remaining  with  us,  as  I  ask  you  Northern  Representatives, 
is  any  one  more  responsible  for  the  present  unhappy  condition  of  the 
country  than  these  firebrands  of  the  sanctuary — North  and  South  ?  Have 
not  the  fiercest  zealots  of  secession  and  abolition  been  found  among  those 
who  have  kindled  on  God's  altar  the  unhallowed  embers  of  sectional 
asperity?  The  gentleman  from  Maine  wants  proof.  Why,  sir,  it  is  easy 
enough  to  furnish  it.  Go  back  to  the  three  thousand  clergymen  of  New 
England,  who,  in  the  name  of  the  Most  High,  felt  themselves  accredited 
to  send  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  a  special  denunciation  of 
Stephen  A.  Douglas  for  his  championship  of  the  rights  of  the  people  of 
the  Territories.  Their  anti-slavery  evangel  was  met  by  him  with  the  same 
defiance  which  the  Democracy  displayed  in  the  days  of  Jefferson,  when 
the  New  England  clergy  reviled  that  apostle  of  our  political  faith.  The 
impertinent  and  'improper  interference  by  a  portion  of  the  clergy  in  the 
politics  of  the  country,  is  not  peculiar  to  our  day,  though  never  before  has 
it  been  so  conspicuous  as  in  fomenting  the  troubles  which  have  culminated 
in  this  calamitous  war. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  clergymen  in  this  country.     I  have  before  me 


CIVIL   WAR.  305 

a  description  of  one  class,  with  which  I  have  no  doubt  gentlemen  on  the 
othi'f  side  are  more  familiar  than  with  those  who  minister  in  the  church 
in  which  I  happen  to  worship.  [Laughter.]  I  will  recite  the  descrip 
tion  : 

"  A  minister,  whom  hell  had  sent, 

To  spread  its  blast  where'er  he  went, 

And  fling,  as  o'er  our  earth  he  trod, 

His  shadow  betwixt  man  and  God." 

Now,  sir,  all  ministers  who  come  within  that  definition  I  want  to  see 
enrolled  in  the  army  and  marched  to  its  front.  There  let  them  do  their 
duty,  and  see  whether  they  cannot  help  to  put  down  this  rebellion  which 
they  have  been  so  long  instigating.  Let  them  suffer  some  of  the  conse 
quences  that  our  brothers  undergo  in  the  Southwest  and  along  the  Rappa- 
hannock.  I  would  not  have  them  go  merely  as  clerks,  letter-writers,  or 
chaplains.  Let  them  shoulder  the  twelve-pound  musket,  do  picket  duty, 
and  trudge  like  our  brave  boys  amid  winter  snows,  spring  mud,  and  sum 
mer  suns,  under  the  packed  knapsack,  and  my  word  for  it,  they  will  come 
back  sanctified  by  grace.  [Laughter.]  After  the  eulogy  pronounced 
upon  the  clergy  by  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  may  we  not  presume  that 
they  would  be  in  a  better  condition  for  the  sacrifice,  than  many  an  unsanc- 
tified  Democrat?  "Would  they  not  ascend  into  the  realms  of  glory  with 
less  inconvenience  or  delay?  [Laughter.]  Very  many  of  them,  from 
my  observation,  would  not  be  as  much  of  a  loss  to  the  country  as  my 
clerical  friend  over  the  way  would  suppose. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  not  have  addressed  the  gentleman  from 
Maine  in  this  style,  had  it  not  been  that  he  rung  into  his  speech  over 
and  over  again,  what  has  been  rung  into  the  speeches  of  other  gentle 
men  on  that  side  of  the  House  since  this  debate  began,  as  well  as  into 
newspapers  and  stump  speeches,  the  usual  quantity  of  malignant  talk 
about  "  Copperheads,"  and  the  disloyal  Democracy.  A  very  beautiful 
mode  of  argumentation  this  !  It  is  calculated  to  produce  a  very  pleasing 
impression  on  this  side  of  the  House  !  The  debate  on  this  measure  from 
its  opening  has  been  characterized  by  this  tender  affability  of  manner ! 
One  would  have  supposed  it  would  have  been  wise  to  have  made  the  effort 
to  conciliate  this  side  of  the  House  in  favor  of  this  measure ;  but  you 
sought  to  conciliate  nobody.  War  Democrats — Peace  Democrats — to  use 
your  inapposite  language,  are  all  alike.  My  eloquent  friend  from  New 
York  [Mr.  STEELE],  who  has  spoken  so  well  for  the  Governor  of  his 
State,  and  the  rights  of  his  State,  and  who  expressed  his  willingness  to 
sustain,  through  the  States,  your  calls  for  aid — he  is  no  exception.  You 
sought  not  to  conciliate  my  friend  from  Indiana  [Mr.  HOLMAN],  who  has 
been  laboring  for  the  last  two  hours  at  my  side  to  make  this  bill,  if  pos 
sible,  less  objectionable  by  a  substitute.  He,  too,  has  the  fang'and  poison 
of  the  Copperhead.  You  sought  not  to  conciliate  any  class  of  opinion, 
however  loyal  and  conscientious.  You  were  unwilling,  when  this  bill 
came  in  first,  to  allow  it  to  be  scrutinized.  You  sought  to  force  it 
through  without  amendments,  without  discussion ;  and  but  for  the  deter 
mined  nerve  of  this  side  of  the  Chamber,  you  would  have  accomplished 
your  purpose  and  passed  the  bill  with  all  of  "its  infernal  enginery  of  oppres 
sion.  Gentlemen,  you  did  not  know  us.  We  were  determined  in  the  first 
20 


306  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

place  to  have  discussion ;  and  in  the  second  place  to  get  the  bill  back  into 
a  position  where  it  could  be  amended,  and  as  many  of  its  obnoxious  fea 
tures  removed  as  it  was  possible  to  remove  in  this  Congress.  What  we 
resolved  to  do,  that  we  have  accomplished.  Before  I  come  to  the  discus 
sion  of  the  bill  itself,  I  owe  it  to  the  people  of  my  district  to  repel  the 
charges  made  by  you  upon  their  representative. 

The  three  Republicans  who  have  last  spoken  [Messrs.  DUNN,  STEVENS, 
and  FESSENDEN]  have  charged  that  we  are  disloyal  to  the  country ;  to  the 
country  which  we  love  as  well,  I  will  not  say  better  than  you ;  to  that 
country  which  we  love  only  less  than  we  would  love  our  Heavenly  Father. 
From  the  beginning  of  the  debate  we  have  heard  nothing  but  contemptu 
ous  scorn  and  contumely  hurled  against  this  side  of  the  House.  Do  you 
believe  that  members  of  this  House,  though  in  a  minority,  who  are  your 
equals  here,  will  silently  permit  such  language  to  go  unlashed?  If  we 
were  dishonored  at  home,  do  you  think  we  are  craven  enough  to  receive 
such  epithets  without  giving  scorn  for  scorn?  But  being  in  fact  the  ma 
jority,  having  received  the  approbation  of  our  constituents  at  home,  do 
you  imagine  that  we  will  sit  here  in  timid  crouching,  and  receive  your  con 
tumely  without  making  some  fit  reply?  Do  you  expect  that  we  will,  under 
the  forms  of  courtesy,  mouth  honeyed  words  for  your  abuse  ?  Do  you  im 
agine  we  cannot  tell  denunciation  from  debate?  You  forget  that  we 
come  fresh  from  the  people,  covered  all  over  with  their  generous  approba 
tion.  My  eloquent  friend  from  Indiana  [Mr.  VOORHEES]  told  you  last 
night  that  you  were  but  corpses  stalking  against  public  decency,  for  a 
short  time  only,  before  the  public  gaze.  [Laughter.]  A  nice  party,  in 
deed,  this  company  of  corpses,  to  talk  to  us,  the  Representatives  of  the 
people!  [Laughter.]  The  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  DUNN],  con 
scious  of  his  defunct  condition,  talked  to  us,  as  he  confessed,  from  the 
confines  of  his  sepulchre, 

"  Hark,  from  the  tombs  a  doleful  sound  ; 
Mine  ears  attend  the  cry."     [Great  laughter.] 

If  you  gentlemen  who  play  the  political  phantom  wish  to  carry  out  the 
proper  definition  of  a  ghost,  cease  to  squeak  and  gibber  your  abolitionism 
and  go  back  into  your  cerements,  for  daylight,  thank  God !  has  begun  to 
dawn.  [Laughter.]  Do  you  suppose  that  we,  who  are  fresh  from  the 
people,  have  any  reason  to  distract  our  minds  at  what  you  utter  against 
us  ?  Do  you  suppose,  for  instance,  that  we  who  represent  Ohio,  where 
we  had  nineteen  members  of  Congress  to  elect,  and  under  an  infamous 
gerrymander  which  allowed  us  only  two  democrats,  and  who  will  come 
back  to  the  next  Congress  fourteen  to  your  five,  are  to  be  lectured  by  you 
for  disloyalty  ?  Do  you  take  us  to  be  as  contemptible  as  yourselves  ?  You 
ghosts  of  the  dead  past  mistake  the  temper  of  our  constituents  as  you  have 
mistaken  us.  We  know  our  rights  under  the  Constitution.  We  have  a 
sound  record,  to  which  we  can  forever  point ;  for  we  have  stoocf  by  the 
country  when  you  failed  it.  We  have,  under  the  ineradicable  love  of  law 
and  order,  stood  by  your  own  Administration  when  you  have  stigmatized 
and  denounced  it.  We  did  our  best  in  the  Congress  before  this,  to  settle 
these  troubles,  when  adjustment  was  easy.  We  labored  with  anxious  care, 
that  peace  might  continue  in  the  land.  The  people  believe  that  you  were 


CIVIL   WAK.  307 

recreant  then  ;  that  you  arc  responsible  for  the  failure  to  settle  these  difficul 
ties  by  compromise.  You  know  that  the  people  so  believe,  for  that  was  a 
part  of  their  decision  at  the  recent  elections.  If  you  still  entertain  any 
doubt  about  your  recreancy  and  responsibility,  read  this  letter,  recently 
produced  in  the  Illinois  Legislature  by  Hon.  Mr.  Hays,  from  Judge  Doug 
las,  dated  the  29th  of  December,  1860.  In  it  he  says  : 

"  The  South  would  take  my  proposition  if  the  Republicans  would  agree  to  it.  But  the 
extremes  North  and  South  hold  oft',  and  are  precipitating  the  country  into  revolution  and 
civil  war. 

"  While  I  can  do  no  act  which  recognizes  or  countenances  the  doctrine  of  secession, 
my  policy  is  peace,  and  I  will  not  consider  the  question  of  war  until  every  effort  has  been 
made  for  peace,  and  all  hope  shall  have  vanished.  When  that  time  comes,  if  unfortu 
nately  it  shall  come,  I  will  then  do  what  it  becomes  an  American  Senator  to  do  on  the 
then  state  of  facts.  Many  of  the  Republican  leaders  desire  a  dissolution  of  the  Union, 
and  urf/e  war  as  a  means  of  accomplishing  disunion  ;  while  others  are  union  men  m  good 
faith.  We  have  now  reached  the  point  where  a  compromise,  on  the  basis  of  mutual  con 
cession,  or  disunion  and  war  are  inevitable.  I  prefer  a  fair  and  just  compromise." 

If  you  still  doubt,  read  again  another  letter  from  the  same  honest  and 
noble  man,  with  which  the  country  is  familiar,  in  which  he  attributed  the 
defeat  of  all  amicable  adjustments  to  the  partisan  desire  of  the  Republican 
Senators  to  confirm  certain  appointments  by  the  (then)  incoming  Admin 
istration.  The  Republican  Senators  wished  to  have  a  majority  in  the  Sen 
ate  for  this  purpose.  But  for  this  petty  political  object,  Judge  Douglas 
thought  that  they  would  have  passed  some  compromise.  They  wanted 
the  seceded  States  to  go  out — they  wanted  the  Southern  Senators  to  leave 
the  Senate.  Because,  without  their  absence,  the  Senate  would  never  have 
approved  of  such  abolition  appointments  as  Cassius  M.  Clay  as  Minister 
to  Petersburg ;  which  I  believe  he  yet  holds  in  connection  with  Simon 
Cameron,  and  a  major-generalship  in  the  army  [laughter],  and  which 
offices  he  is  filling  to  the  President's  contentment,  by  philandering  around 
Willard's  Hotel  in  these  several  capacities  [laughter],  if  indeed  he  has 
any  capacity.  [Laughter.]  The  Republican  Senators  knew  that  the 
President  might  send  in  the  nomination  of  such  a  man  as  Carl  Schurz  as 
Minister  to  Spain,  a  German  abolition  infidel,  who  brought  to  this  coun 
try  the  belief  that  license  was  liberty,  and  that  Almighty  God  was  a  fig 
ment  of  the  brain — some  strange  abstract  entity,  with  the  concrete 
attribute  of  drinking  lager  beer  in  the  regions  above  the  sun.  [Great 
laughter.]  They  wanted  to  confirm  another  class  of  abolitionists  like  the 
inveterate  abolitionist  who  used  to  represent  the  Ashtabula  district  of 
Ohio  in  this  House ;  I  mean  the  Hon.  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  now  Consul- 
General  to  the  Canadas.  They  wanted  to  confirm  Helper,  the  author  of 
the  Helper  book  endorsed  by  the  Republican  members  of  Congress,  and 
which  urged  robbery,  murder,  and  insurrection,  in  order,  by  violence,  to 
rid  the  country  of  slavery.  I  might  enlarge  the  catalogue  of  abolitionists 
until  the  House  were  surfeited.  Hence  it  was  that  Judge  Douglas  de 
clared  that  the  Republicans  were  responsible  for  not  making  an  amicable 
adjustment  of  our  troubles.  In  his  opinion,  they  were  willing  to  welcome 
civil  war,  and  all  its  attendant  horrors,  from  the  mere  greed  for  office,  and 
to  reward  the  anarchs  and  destructionists  of  the  land.  Hence  it  is  that, 
before  God  and  the  country,  I  hold  you,  on  the  testimony  of  Douglas, 
responsible  for  the  failure  to  settle  these  difficulties. 


308  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 

But  after  all  had  failed  through  Republican  partisanship  and  greed  for 
office,  we  came  to  the  extra  session  of  Congress.  You  will  remember 
that,  with  Douglas,  we  doubted  if  ever  war  could  reclaim  the  Southern 
Stall's.  We  plead — you  know  how  even  so  humble  a  member  as  myself 
plead — against  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword  for  the  settlement  of  these 
feuds  of  the  sections.  But  we  plead  in  vain.  Douglas  told  you  war  was 
disunion.  But  war  came  !  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  who  struck 
the  first  blow.  It  is  idle  now  to  argue  who  provoked  the  blow  that  was 
first  struck.  You  know  it  all.  We  came  to  the  extra  session  of  1861. 
We  were  still,  as  ever,  loyal,  law-abiding.  We  were  willing  to  do  our  all 
for  the  Government.  Sadly  we  acted  as  the  coadjutors  of  FORCE.  But 
the  great  drama  of  blood  having  been  begun,  not  by  our  aid  or  consent, 
we  acted  on  the  side  of  the  Government — loyally,  firmly,  sadly.  We 
could  not  do  otherwise,  so  help  us  God. 

The  record  of  that  session  will  show  how  we  supported  the  Adminis 
tration,  which  we  had  not  contributed  to  place  in  power.  I  remember 
well  when,  on  the  15th  of  July,  1861,  General  McClcruand,  of  Illinois, 
offered  the  following  resolution  (House  Journal,  1st  session,  37th  Congress, 
p.  87)  : 

"  Whereas,  a  portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  violation  of  their  consti 
tutional  obligations,  have  taken  up  arms  against  the  National  Government,  and  are  now 
striving,  by  aggressive  and  iniquitous  war,  to  overthrow  it  and  break  up  the  union  ol 
these  States :  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  this  House  hereby  pledges  itself  to  vote  for  any  amount  of  money 
and  any  number  of  men  which  may  be  necessary  to  insure  the  speedy  and  effectual  sup 
pression  of  said  rebellion,  and  the  permanent  restoration  of  the  Federal  authority  every 
where  within  the  limits  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States." 

I  find  nearly  every  member  of  this  House,  upon  this  side,  voting 
for  that  resolution.  There  were  but  five  votes  against  it ;  and  of  those, 
three  are  now  absent  and  openly  disloyal  to  the  Government.  Did  you 
want  any  thing  more — any  thing  better  than  that?  You  sought  harmony 
among  all  parties  at  that  time.  All  the  men  and  all  the  money  that  was 
wanted  was  granted  by  our  votes.  Your  President  asked  for  four  hun 
dred  thousand  men,  and  we  gave  him  five  hundred  thousand  ;  he  asked  for 
four  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  we  gave  him  five  hundred  millions. 
Whenever  he  came  here  asking  men  and  money,  we  gave  them  to  him. 
Could  we  do  more?  Were  we  disloyal  men  for  that?  What  followed? 
Shortly  afterwards  the  venerable  member  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CRTTTEN- 
DEN]  offered  his  resolution  as  to  the  purposes  of  the  war.  All  of  us  joined 
in  its  adoption.  We  gave  it  our  adhesion,  as  the  direction  which  we  were 
to  follow  in  the  pursuit  of  this  war  against  this  rebellion.  What  more 
could  we  do  and  be  faithful?  Could  we  have  done  less?  We  were  only 
pursuing  what  we  had  declared  before  in  our  speeches  here.  I  remember 
a  scene  which  was  recalled  to  my  mind  by  some  remarks  from  the  gentle 
man  from  Indiana  [Mr.  DUNN].  I  was  a  member  of  this  Congress  when 
State  after  State  sent  here  their  ordinances  of  secession.  I  recall  the  first 
motion  that  was  made  by  a  member  from  Florida  [Mr.  HAWKINS],  who  sat 
in  that  seat  occupied  by  my  friend  from  Maryland  [Mr.  CRESFIELD],  to  be 
excused  from  service  upon  a  committee  raised  to  compromise  these  troubles. 
He  gave  us  as  a  reason  that  his  State  was  already  resolved  to  secede.  I 


CIVIL   WAR.  309 

then  said  that  I  would  not  vote  to  excuse  him,  when  he  gave  such  a  sedi 
tious  reason.  And  when  afterwards  secession  speeches  were  made,  I  had 
the  honor,  as  the  first  member  of  this  House,  to  struggle  for  the  floor  with 
my  friend,  General  McClernand,  to  denounce  the  doctrine  of  secession  as 
alien  to  the  Constitution,  bad  in  theory,  and  worse  in  practice.  I  picture 
now  the  scene  which  took  place  here,  after  General  McClernand  and  my 
self  had  concluded  our  speeches,  and  when  the  present  Postmaster-Gen 
eral  of  the  Confederate  States  [Mr.  REAGAN]  denounced  us  as  the  tail  of 
the  abolition  kite.  Great  God  !  that  I  should  ever  have  lived  to  have  had 
such  a  reproach  even  from  a  rebel.  [Laughter.] 

We  who  have  been  striving  to  keep  this  war  in  its  proper  direction,  so  as 
thereby  to  make  it  short  and  successful ;  we  who  have  stood  here  from  the 
first  to  sustain  this  Government  and  this  Administration  which  we  did  not 
contribute  to  place  in  power,  do  not  deserve  the  contemptuous  reproaches 
cast  upon  us  by  ingrates  upon  the  other  side.  Copperheads  are  we  ?  Cop 
perheads  !  I  would  not  follow  this  pitiable  example  of  discourtesy  by 
speaking  of  other  sorts  of  heads.  [Laughter.]  I  would  not  hurl  such 
epithets  across  this  chamber.  It  would  be  unparliamentary,  and  I  forego 
the  luxury  of  being  out  of  order  here.  I  know  the  gentlemen  are  dead 
heads,  and  that  is  the  reason  why— on  the  principle  of  "  nisi  bonum,  nil 
mortuis  " — I  speak  of  them  Avith  respect.  [Laughter.]  It  has  been 
laid  down  by  the  best  ethical  writers  upon  free  government,  that  it  is 
perfectly  right  and  proper  to  encourage  criticism  upon  the  administration 
of  public  affairs.  We  were  taught  that  in  the  best  English  literature. 
John  Milton  dedicated  his  grandest  work,  the  "  Areopogitica,"  to  the 
defence  of  free  speech  and  unlicensed  printing.  Even  in  the  Corps 
Legislatif  of  France  now,  the  fullest  debate  is  allowed  to  the  opponents  of 
the  reigning  dynasty  and  its  measures,  even  of  war.  The  noblest  use  of 
free  speech  in  this  or  any  free  country  is  to  criticize  closely  the  political 
conduct  of  our  agents.  Hence  in  England  it  became  a  part  of  the  Consti 
tution  to  have  what  is  called  a  "  constitutional  opposition."  There  is  al 
ways  a  party  out  of  power  to  watch  the  party  in  power.  Why?  Because, 
as  was  remarked  the  other  day,  power  tends  to  slide  from  the  many  to  the 
few.  It  tends  to  aggrandize  itself.  It  grows  by  what  it  feeds  on.  A 
healthy  state  of  the  body  politic  requires  a  party  at  all  times,  standing 
upon  the  fundamental  law  as  the  basis  of  its  existence,  and  fearlessly  vigi 
lant  against  the  encroachments  of  power.  This  is  the  present  mission  of 
the  Democracy.  We  assume  now  no  further  responsibility.  We  have 
never  failed  to  appeal  to  the  Constitution  as  the  guide  of  our  conduct.  We 
who  have  opposed  this  and  similar  bills,  have  done  so  because  we  thought 
them  infringements  upon  the  Constitution.  It  is  for  this  that  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side  hurl  at  us  epithets  of  "  secession  sympathizers,"  "  dis 
loyal  men."  I  am  yet  to  learn  that  any  member  upon  this  side  has  yet 
gone  outside  of  the  proper  constitutional  opposition  to  this  Administration. 
You  cannot  point  to  a  single  act,  or  to  a  single  vote,  or  to  a  single  speech 
uttered  by  us,  looking  to  any  opposition  to  this  Government.  Our  oppo 
sition  is  to  the  continued  and  persistent  breaches  of  our  Constitution. 
Every  vote  upon  this  side,  and  every  speech,  has  been  in  favor  of  some 
mode,  one  mode  by  one,  and  another  mode  by  another,  of  sustaining  this 
Government  to  the  end.  No  proposition  for  a  separation  of  the  Union 


310  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

has  ever  come  from  this  side  of  the  chamber.  None.  none.  The  only 
proposition  of  that  sort,  as  was  remarked  the  other  day  by  my  friend  from 
Indiana  [Mr.  HOLMAN],  emanated  from  a  gentleman  who  has  always 
acted  with  the  other  side  [Mr.  CONWAY].  He  tried  the  other  day  to  ex 
plain  his  position.  I  have  since  read  his  resolution  in  order  to  get  the 
benefit  of  his  explanation.  But  as  I  read  his  resolution,  it  says,  as  re 
ported  in  his  printed  speech,  "  that  the  Executive  be,  and  he  is  hereby  re 
quested  to  issue  a  general  order  to  all  commanders  of  forces  in  the  several 
military  departments  of  the  United  States  to  discontinue  offensive  opera 
tions  against  the  enemy,  and  to  act  for  the  future  entirely  on  the  de 
fensive."  And  further  : 

u  Resolved,  That  the  Executive  be,  and  he  is  further  requested  to  enter  into  negotia 
tions  with  the  authorities  of  the  Confederate  States,  with  reference  to  a  cessation  of  hos 
tilities,  based  on  the  following  proposition  :  Recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  Con 
federate  States." 

What  does  that  mean  ?  It  was  not  offered  by  a  Democrat.  No  Cop 
perhead  offered  it.  What  does  it  mean  ?  Gentlcmeu  upon  this  side  of 
the  chamber  denounced  that  resolution.  No  man  upon  that  side  has  yet 
risen  to  denounce  it. 

Mr.  BLAKE.  I  want  to  say  to  the  gentleman,  that  every  gentleman 
upon  this  side  of  the  House  denounced  it  by  his  vote. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  know  they  voted  against  it.  I  wish  they  would  confine 
their  denunciations  of  the  Democracy  to  their  silent  votes. 

Mr.  BLAKE.     That  we  are  doing. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  mean  to  include  my  colleague  among  those  who 
have  so  offensively  denounced  Democrats.  But  all  who  have  spoken  have 
denounced  us,  although  they  know  that  we  have  again  and  again  asserted 
that  we  are  for  the  Union  at  all  hazards,  and  by  every  means  which  will 
in  our  judgment  secure  its  integrity.  We  were  for  this  Union  by  war 
when  war  seemed  a  necessity.  We  are  for  this  Union  by  peace  when 
ever  peace  is  honorable  and  possible.  We  are  opposed  to  any  war  like 
that  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  that  Avill  make  disunion  possible.  We  are 
opposed  to  any  peace  that  will  mutilate  the  Republic.  That  is  the  "  Cop 
perhead  "  policy,  and  I  ask  my  friend  from  Maine  to  pray  over  it  to-night, 
and  see  if  he  cannot  think  better  of  us.  [Laughter.]  Mark  the  Demo 
cratic  policy  :  No  peace  with  the  idea  of  dismemberment ;  no  Avar  that  is 
fatal  to  the  Union  ;  every  thing  for  the  Union  under  the  Constitution  ;  we 
will  never  break  that  instrument  to  bring  back  the  Union  ;  for  when  the 
Constitution  is  broken,  there  is  no  Union,  but  a  unity  of  territory,  a  des 
potism  of  power. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  desire  now  to  discuss  some  of  the  features  of  the  bill 
before  us.  I  will  be  very  brief;  for  they  have  been  thoroughly  dissected 
by  members  upon  this  side  of  the  House.  I  want  to  refer  to  only  one  or 
two  propositions  in  that  connection.  I  proposed,  two  days  since,  to 
amend  the  bill  by  inserting  the  word  "  white  "  in  the  first  section.  At 
that  time  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  OLIN]  advised  us  that  no 
amendments  would  be  permitted  at  all,  and  no  discussion  either.  One 
good  thing  we  have  gained  by  this  discussion  at  least,  and  that  is,  that  if 
this  bill  is  to  pass  at  all,  it  will  pass  in  a  less  obnoxious  shape.  The 


CIVIL   WAR.  311 

leader  of  this  House,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  STEVENS, 
in  the  speech  he  made  a  while  ago,  proposed  radical  amendments. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tern.  The  gentleman  will  suspend  his  remarks 
while  the  Clerk  reads  a  clause  from  the  Manual. 

The  CLERK  read  as  follows  : 

"  No  person  in  speaking  is  to  mention  a  member  then  present  by  his  name,  but  to 
describe  him  by  his  seat  in  the  House,  or  who  spoke  last,  or  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question." 

Mr.  VALLANDIGHAM.  It  is  always  in  order  to  name  a  member  after 
having  described  him. 

Mr.  Cox.  No,  I  do  not  think  it  is  perfectly  in  order.  I  differ  with 
my  colleague.  It  has  become  a  bad  habit  here,  and  I  have  only  followed 
the  precedent  set  me  by  distinguished  members. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tcm.     T^he  gentleman  will  proceed  in  order. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  very  glad  the  Speaker  made  that  point  on  me,  for  I 
shall  take  it  more  goodnaturedly  than  some  others  might  have  done. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tern.  [Mr.  DAWES].  That  is  the  reason  why  the 
point  was  made  on  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  mean,  then,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  who  is 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  ;  the  gentleman  who  has 
such  a  chronic  dislike  to  Democrats  that  he  always  lectures  them  at  the 
.end  of  his  speeches  [laughter]  ;  the  gentleman  who  said  he  was  sick  of 
hearing  this  talk  about  the  Constitution,  who  did  not  want  the  old  Union 
restored.  The  Speaker  will  now  recognize  whom  I  mean.  [Laughter.] 
If  I  am  not  explicit  enough,  I  will  describe  him  as  the  gentleman  who 
stated  a  great  many  apocryphal  things,  and  among  them,  that  all  the 
Democrats  stayed  at  home  to  vote  while  the  Republicans  are  the  belli 
gerent  part  of  the  people  ;  the  gentleman  who  undertook,  in  his  speech  to 
night,  to  destroy  the  well-earned  fame  of  a  general  born  in  his  own  State 
— General  McClellan — an  undertaking  that  all  Pennsylvania,  with  all  her 
iron,  and  all  her  tariffs,  and  all  her  Camerons,  and  all  her  robberies,  can 
never  accomplish.  [Laughter.]  Perhaps  I  am  not  yet  explicit  enough. 
The  Chair  will  know  whom  I  mean  when  I  refer  to  a  speech  made  by  a 
distinguished  member  from  Massachusetts,  now  in  the  Chair,  about  com 
posing  political  difficulties  by  the  gentle  amenities  of  horse  contracts. 
Now,  this  gentleman  whom  I  have  just  described,  offered  to  amend  this 
bill  in  several  important  particulars,  and,  among  the  rest,  he  proposed  to 
strike  out  the  words  "  authorizing  provost  marshals  summarily  to  arrest 
for  treasonable  practices."  Humph  !  We  have  come  to  that !  You  are 
getting  along  pretty  well  for  dead  men.  [Laughter.]  Go  on  a  day  or  two 
longer  with  this  discussion,  and  you  will  drop  the  bill  altogether  ;  for  when 
you  shall  have  blotted  that  out  of  the  bill,  you  will  take  the  meanest  sting 
out  of  it.  If  there  be  one  thing  that  the  people  I  represent  fear  and  de 
spise  most,  it  is,  that  these  miserable  inquisitors,  created  by  this  bill,  these 
sneaking  spies,  these  pliant  servitors  of  power,  called  provost  marshals, 
spooned  off  the  scum  of  the  Abolition  party  of  the  North,  should  have  power 
to  pry  in  and  around  the  homes  of  quiet  and  loyal  citizens  to  play  the  in 
former  upon  Democrats  and  Conservatives,  drag  them  to  the  Bastiles  of 
the  Administration,  not  because  they  are  disloyal,  but  because  they  happen 
to  differ  in  opinion  with  their  fellow-citizens  about  this  war  and  its  con- 


312  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGKESS. 

duct,  and  this  Administration  and  its  conduct.  I  congratulate  you  that 
you  have  saved  many  provost  marshals  from  the  rope.  The  chairman  of 
the  Military  Committee,  when  we  started  this  debate,  said  he  would  not 
allow  any  amendments,  not  even  to  effect  this  object.  But  you  are  not 
entitled  to  any  credit  for  making  this  amendment.  You  have  been  forced 
by  the  cogent  eloquence  of  the  debate  upon  this  side  of  the  chamber,  to 
withdraw  your  "  treasonable  practices  "  from  the  bill.  So  much  for  de 
bate.  We  have  made  a  little  by  it  at  least ;  and  now  I  hope  that  some 
one  upon  the  other  side,  like  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  will 
progress  a  little  further,  and  agree  first  to  insert  the  word  "  white  "  in  the 
first  section  of  the  bill,  so  that,  instead  of  reading  "  all  able-bodied  male 
citizens  of  the  United  States,"  it  shall  read,  "  all  able-bodied  white  male 
citizens  of  the  United  States."  It  is  only  a  verbal  amendment.  [Laugh 
ter.]  Suppose  you  consider  it  over  night.  We  may  all  get  together, 
after  a  little  more  debate,  and  agree  to  kill  the  bill  entirely. 

There  is  another  objection  to  this  bill,  which  has  been  urged  here, 
and  which  was  most  eloquently  urged  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  WHITE].  It 
is  this :  This  bill  breaks  down  not  only  the  rights  of  the  States,  but  the 
executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  departments  of  the  States.  It  infringes 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  It  seeks  to  take  from  the  States 
certain  rights  over  their  own  militia — a  right  never  to  be  yielded  by  a  free 
people  without  dishonor  and  danger.  How  is  that  objection  met  by  gen 
tlemen  on  that  side  ?  Not  as  it  was  met  in  the  other  branch  of  Congress  ; 
for  there  it  was  not  pretended  that  this  bill  was  not  intended  to  call  out  the 
militia.  Here,  it  is  a  bill  for  enrolling  and  calling  out  the  national  forces, 
and  for  other  purposes,  as  if  you  could,  by  a  dash  of  the  pen,  change  the 
nature  and  purpose  of  this  measure.  When  this  bill  was  first  reported  in 
the  Senate,  all  admitted  that  it  was  a  bill  to  call  out  the  militia  ;  and  its  lan 
guage,  but  not  its  scope  or  effect,  is  changed  only  for  the  purpose  of  avoid 
ing  the  attacks  that  would  be  made  upon  it  on  account  of  its  breaking 
down  the  rights  of  the  States  over  the  militia.  Now  there  is  an  army  of 
the  United  States,  just  as  well  known  as  the  militia  of  the  States.  The 
former  is  subject  to  the  command  of  the  Chief  Magistrate,  and  completely 
controlled  by  the  rules  and  regulations  made  here  ;  the  latter  is  not  subject 
to  the  Federal  Government,  until  called  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  in  pursuance  of  the  Federal  Constitution  and  laws.  But  gentle 
men  say  that  this  is  a  bill  for  creating  or  increasing  the  regular  army,  and 
that  there  is  no  limit  to  our  power  over  that  subject.  Well,  if  this  be 
true,  and  this  bill  is  executed,  there  will  be  no  militia  left  in  the  States 
after  this  regular  army  is  constituted.  You  sweep  out  of  being  the  whole 
militia  of  the  States  into  the  Federal  control.  You  leave  the  States  un 
protected,  so  far  as  the  militia  protects  them.  This  bill  is,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  a  bill  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  the  States  ;  but  it  does  not 
make  the  call  according  to  the  Constitution  and  the  law.  The  militia  is  to 
be  called  out,  under  this  bill,  directly  by  the  President  or  his  subordinate 
federal  agents  acting  upon  the  individual  citizens.  It  never  was  the  cus 
tom  of  the  Government  so  to  call  them.  They  should  be  called  through 
the  intervention  of  the  States,  and  in  that  way  alone.  I  need  not  refer 
gentlemen  to  the  articles  of  the  Constitution  on  this  subject.  They  are 
familiar.  I  will  read,  however,  the  second  section  of  the  second  article  : 


CIVIL   WAE.  313 

"  The  President  shall  be  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  States  when  called  into  the  actual  service  of  the 
United  States." 

Not  while  they  are  being  enrolled,  but  "  when  called  into  the  actual  ser 
vice  of  the  United  States,"  is  the  President  the  Commander  of  the  militia 
of  the  States.  In  my  judgment,  then,  the  Federal  Government  has  no 
authority  over  the  militia  until  it  is  called  into  the  service  of  the  United 
States.  By  another  section,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  author 
izes  Congress 

"  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress 
insurrection,  and  repel  invasions. 

"  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  governing 
such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States." 

You  may  provide  for  their  organization.  You  may  provide  for  their 
enrolment,  which  is  a  part  of  the  organization.  You  may  provide  for 
arming  them.  You  may  provide  the  mode  and  manner  in  wrhich  they 
shall  be  disciplined.  But  you  cannot  do  that  by  your  Federal  Executive. 
That  is  to  be  done  by  the  States  themselves.  They  are  authorized  to  do 
it,  and  the  Federal  Government  is  excluded  from  that  office.  That  is  the 
opinion  of  the  best  commentator  on  the  Constitution,  Judge  Story.  I  re 
fer  to  vol.  iii.  sec.  1208  : 

"  The  question,  when  the  authority  of  Congress  over  the  militia  becomes  exclusive, 
must  essentially  depend  upon  the  fact  when  they  are  to  be  deemed  in  the  actual  service 
of  the  United  States.  There  is  a  clear  distinction  between  calling  forth  the  militia  and 
their  being  in  actual  service.  They  are  not  contemporaneous  acts,  nor  necessarily  identi 
cal  in  their  constitutional  bearings.  The  President  is  not  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  mi 
litia  except  when  hi  actual  service,  and  not  when  they  are  merely  ordered  into  service. 
They  are  subjected  to  martial  law  only  when  in  actual  service,  and  not  merely  when  called 
forth,  before  they  have  obeyed  the  call." 

One  of  the  sections  of  this  bill  proposes  to  subject  the  men  who  may 
be  drafted  to  martial  law,  to  deprive  them  of  the  legal  right  of  being 
tried  for  criminal  offences  by  a  jury  of  their  peers,  before  they  are  mus 
tered  into  the  service  of  the  United  States.  Such  a  power  is  not  conferred 
by  the  Constitution.  It  will  be  resisted  as  a  usurpation.  In  this  connec 
tion  I  refer  to  Elliott's  Debates,  pages  287,  288,  and  294,  to  show  that 
Judge  Story  is  justified  in  his  construction,  by  the  language  of  those  who 
were  contemporaneous  with  the  formation  of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  unnecessary  for  me,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  comment  on  that  commenta 
tor.  Judge  Story  lays  down  the  constitutional  interpretation  explicitly. 
If  you  intend  to  take  these  men  as  the  militia  of  the  country — and  you 
mean  nothing  else — you  cannot  do  it  except  by  the  intervention  of  the 
States  themselves.  There  is  another  clause  of  the  Constitution  (article 
2d  of  the  amendments)  which  reserves  to  the  States,  for  a  vital  purpose, 
the  control  of  their  own  militia : 

"  A  well-regulated  militia  being  necessary  to  the  security  of  a  free  Stat3,  the  right  ot 
the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms  shall  not  be  infringed." 

Let  this  Federal  Government  beware  how  it  seeks  a  conflict  about  the 
clearly  reserved  rights  of  the  States.  The  practice  of  arbitrary  arrests, 
the  past  year  and  a  half,  is  not  calculated  to  make  future  arrests  of  citi 
zens  either  pleasant  or  safe  for  the  minions  of  Federal  power. 


314  EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

Now,  if  the  Constitution  means  any  thing,  it  means  that  in  no  emer 
gency  shall  the  States  of  this  Union  lose  the  power  to  control  their  own 
militia,  for  their  own  State  purposes,  except  when  it  is  merged  in  the 
actual  service  of  the  United  States.  By  this  bill  you  leave  no  power  in 
the  States  to  officer  or  direct  their  militia.  The  troops  of  Ohio  may  be 
mingled  miscellaneously  with  those  from  Maine.  There  is  a  wise  reason 
why  the  militia  should  be  considered  and  kept  as  an  institution  of  the 
States.  You  will  find  that  reason  in  the  very  genius  and  structure  of  the 
federal  system.  We  cannot,  in  these  times,  too  often  recur  to  the  early 
expounders  of  the  Constitution.  I  hold  to  the  Jeffersonian  and  Madiso- 
nian  construction  of  that  instrument,  with  respect  to  the  rights  of  States. 
Nowhere  do  I  find  the  tenets  of  this  school  so  correctly  yet  so  familiarly 
expounded  as  in  the  Private  Correspondence  of  Mr.  Madison,  published 
for  private  distribution  by  my  friend  J.  C.  McGuirc,  of  this  city,  and  to 
whom  I  am  indebted  for  the  volume  before  me.  Mr.  Madison  (page  119) 
defines  the  relations  implied  by  the  terms  Union,  Federal,  National,  and 
State,  in  a  letter  written  in  September,  1829,  wherein  he  says  : 

"  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  created  by  the  people  composing  the 
respective  States,  who  alone  had  the  right ;  that  they  organized  the  Government  into  legis 
lative,  executive,  and  judiciary  departments,  delegating  thereto  certain  portions  of  power, 
to  be  exercised  over  the  whole,  and  reserving  the  other  portions  to  themselves  respec 
tively.  As  these  distinct  portions  of  power  were  to  be  exercised  by  the  General  Govern 
ment  and  by  the  State  Governments,  by  each  within  limited  spheres  ;  and  as,  of  course, 
controversies  concerning  the  boundaries  of  their  power  would  happen,  it  was  provided 
that  .they  should  be  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  so  constituted  as 
to  be  as  impartial  as  it  could  be  made  by  the  mode  of  appointment  and  responsibility  for 
the  judges.  Is  there,  then,  no  remedy  for  usurpations  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  concur  ?  Yes,  constitutional  remedies  ;  remonstrances  and  instructions ; 
recurring  elections  and  impeachments  ;  amendment  of  Constitution,  as  provided  by  itself, 
and  exemplified  in  the  llth  article  limiting  the  suability  of  the  States.  These  are  re 
sources  of  the  States  against  the  General  Government,  resulting  from  the  relations  of  the 
States  to  that  Government,  while  no  corresponding  control  exists  in  the  general  over  the 
individual  governments,  all  of  whose  functionaries  are  independent  of  the  United  States 
in  their  appointment  and  responsibility.  In  all  the  views  that  may  be  taken  of  questions 
between  the  State  Governments  and  the  General  Government,  the  awful  consequences  of  a 
final  rupture  and  dissolution  of  the  Union  should  never  for  a  moment  be  lost  sight  of. 
Such  a  prospect  must  be  deprecated,  must  be  shuddered  at  by  every  friend  to  his  country, 
to  liberty,  to  the  happiness  of  man.  Ijpr,  in  the  event  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  an 
impossibility  of  ever  renewing  it  is  brought  home  to  every  mind  by  the  difficulties  encoun 
tered  in  establishing  it.  The  propensity  of  all  communities  to  divide,  when  not  pressed 
into  a  unity*  by  external  danger,  is  a  truth  well  understood.  There  is  no  instance  of  a 
people,  inhabiting  even  a  small  island,  if  remote  from  foreign  danger,  and  sometimes  in 
spite  of  that  pressure,  who  are  not  divided  into  alien,  rival,  hostile  tribes.  The  happy 
union  of  these  States  is  a  wonder ;  their  Constitution  a  miracle  ;  their  example  the  hope 
of  Liberty  throughout  the  world.  Woe  to  the  ambition  that  would  meditate  the  destruc 
tion  of  either." 

I  trust  and  pray  that  this  House  will  not,  by  passing  this  bill,  hazard 
the  fearful  consequences  of  a  further  disruption  of  the  Federal  ties,  by  in 
trenching  upon  the  rights  of  the  States  ;  that  at  least  they  will  seek  first, 
as  Mr.  Madison  suggests,  the  judiciary,  as  the  arbiter  of  these  mooted 
questions  of  power,  before  embarking  this  troubled  people  upon  new  seas 
of  blood,  amidst  other  and  worse  storms  of  conflicting  passion. 

Not  alone  to  Jefferson  and  Madison,  or  the  Supreme  Court,  will  I  go 
for  the  rule  of  construction  as  to  the  Constitution.  Even  that  great  apos- 


CIVIL   WAR.  315 

tie  of  consolidation,  Hamilton,  in  order  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  Con 
stitution  by  his  own  State  of  New  York,  presented  this  exposition  of  our 
G  overnment : 

"  If  the  State  Governments  were  to  be  abolished,  the  question  would  wear  a  different 
face  ;  but  this  idea  is  inadmissible.  They  are  absolutely  necessary  to  the  system.  Their 
existence  must  form  a  leading  principle  in  the  most  perfect  constitution  we  could  form. 
I  insist  that  it  can  never  be  the  interest  or  desire  of  the  national  legislature  (much  less 
the  President)  to  destroy  the  State  Governments.  It  can  derive  no  advantage  from  such 
a  result ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  lose  an  indispensable  support,  a  necessary  aid,  in 
executing  the  laws  and  conveying  the  influences  of  government  to  the  doors  of  the  peo 
ple.  The  Union  is  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  State  Governments  for  its  Chief  Magis 
trate  and  its  Senate.  The  blow  aimed  at  the  members  must  give  a  fatal  wound  to  the 
head,  and  the  destruction  of  the  States  must  be  at  once  political  suicide.  Can  the  Na 
tional  Government  be  guilty  of  this  madness  ?  *  *  And  again  I  have  stated  to  the 
committee  abundant  reasons  to  prove  the  entire  safety  of  the  State  Governments  and  of 
the  people.  I  wish  the  committee  to  remember  that  the  Constitution,  under  examination, 
is  framed  upon  truly  republican  principles,  and  that,  as  it  is  expressly  designed  to  provide 
for  the  common  protection  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States,  it  must  be  utterly 
repugnant  to  this  Constitution  to  subvert  the  State  Governments  or  oppress  the  people." 

This  doctrine  of  State  rights,  Mr.  Speaker,  does  not  carry  us  into 
secession,  for,  according  to  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  Jefferson,  Madison,  and 
others,  there  is  a  line  drawn,  beyond  which  State  rights  cannot  go,  but 
within  which  there  is  perfect  immunity  to  the  exercise  of  powers  by  the 
States  in  their  separate  and  sovereign  capacity.  If  the  State  is  aggrieved, 
it  can  neither  nullify  nor  secede.  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  letter  to  Cartright, 
referred  to  in  the  u  Private  Correspondence,"  denied  the  right  of  any 
number  of  single  States  to  arrest  the  execution  of  a  law  of  Congress,  or 
secede  from  the  Federal  system.  A  Convention  of  the  States,  under  the 
Constitution,  he  hailed  "  as  the  peaceable  remedy  for  all  the  conflicting 
claims  of  power  in  our  compound  G-overnment."  In  the  future  complica 
tions  to  which  this  and  similar  bills  will  give  rise,  I  can  see  no  other  than 
the  Madisonian  remedy  for  our  safety  and  regeneration — A  CONVENTION 
OF  THE  STATES  UNDER  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

I  believe  that  this  bill  not  only  subverts  the  State  Governments,  but 
that  it  will  suppress  the  people.  It  breaks  down  the  barrier  which  the 
people  erected  against  consolidated  power  ;  for  never  in  the  history  of  this 
or  any  other  Government  has  such  a  stupendous  power  been  reposed  in 
one  man,  as  the  power  reposed  by  this  bill  in  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  It  makes  this  Government,  so  guarded  in  its  delegation  of  power, 
so  full  of  reservations  to  the  source  of  all  power,  the  people,  an  irrespon 
sible  despotism,  worse  than  that  of  France,  and  more  tyrannical  than  that 
of  Russia.  You  have  already  given  to  this  Administration  the  purse  ;  you 
now  throw  the  sword  into  the  scale,  and  nothing  is  left  to  the  people  but 
abject  submission  or  resistance.  It  becomes  Congress  to  see  to  it  before 
it  intrusts  such  a  power  to  any  one  man  :  first,  whether  it  is  constitutional ; 
and,  if  constitutional,  whether  it  is  expedient  to  intrust  it  to  the  present 
Chief  Magistrate  of  the  country.  For  my  part,  sir,  I  do  not  trust  the 
present  Chief  Magistrate.  I  have  my  reasons  for  it.  These  reasons 
spring  out  of  his  conduct  with  regard  to  the  slavery  question.  Again  and 
again,  beginning  with  his  inaugural  message,  down  to  the  last  conference 
which  he  had  with  the  border  State  members  of  Congress,  who  now  sit 
around  me,  he  asseverated  that  he  would  not  interfere  in  any  way  with  the 


316  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

• 

constitutional  rights  of  the  States  with  regard  to  negro  slavery.  He  said  that 
he  had  no  right  and  no  inclination  thus  to  interfere  ;  and  he  kept  his  word 
for  a  brief  time.  But  abolition  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  upon  him. 
Abolitionists  improved  every  opportunity  to  poison  his  mind,  and  to  salute 
his  ear  with  their  flatteries.  They  made  him  believe  that  he  was  the 
saviour  of  the  black  race.  In  the  very  face  of  his  own  declarations  to  the 
contrary,  and  after  he  had  promised  solemnly  to  the  border  State  Con 
gressmen,  in  a  public  conference  with  them,  that  he  would  do  nothing  to 
injure  either  the  sensibilities  or  the  interests  of  their  States  with  regard  to 
slavery,  he  issued  that  proclamation  which  has  been  so  fatal  to  the  army, 
fatal  to  "a  united  North,"  fatal  to  the  Government,  and  will  be,  I  fear, 
fatal  to  this  Union,  unless  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  come  up  boldly  and 
manfully  and  demand  of  him  to  repudiate  it  forever.  Let  them  prepare 
him  for  the  retraction  by  the  repeal  of  their  confiscation  measures  as  use 
less,  impotent,  and  unconstitutional.  Let  the  President  then  follow  them 
and  withdraw  his  proclamation.  Let  us  start  anew.  Go  back  to  the 
Crittenden  resolutions,  or  if  you  cannot,  by  war,  restore  the  Federal  au 
thority,  try  some  other  mode.  Withdraw  the  negro  entirely  from  your 
counsels  and  conduct,  and  make  one  grand  effort  to  preserve  this  Gov 
ernment  of  white  men.  Will  you  do  it?  If  you  would  resolve  thus 
to  act,  you  would  need  ho  conscription  to  increase  and  inspirit  your 
army.  You  would  then  invigorate  the  public  heart.  You  would  restore 
again  the  public  confidence.  There  is  your  path.  Will  you  follow  it? 
I  believe  that  you  will  get  no  men  under  this  bill.  You  will  get  no 
men  through  your  despicable  and  irresponsible  provost  marshals.  This 
bill  will  only  make  trouble.  I  fear  more  than  I  dare  say.  I  fear  you  do 
not  expect  to  get  men  under  this  bill.  If  the  bill  means  any  thing  in 
reason,  it  is  a  bill  to  enslave  the  people  of  the  North,  and  not  a  bill 
to  put  down  the  rebellion.  It  gives  you  the  power  to  annihilate  the  ballot 
box,  destroy  personal  liberty,  and  scatter  your  spies  and  informers  all 
over  the  country  as  thick  as  the  locusts  of  Egypt.  I  protest  against  it  as 
a  needless  torture  to  the  citizen,  and  as  a  cruel  insult  to  the  patriotism  of 
a  proud  and  free  people.  I  wish  1  could  see  in  this  bill  any  thing  good. 
It  will  simply  irritate  the  people  of  the  North.  It  will  not  bring  about 
that  harmony  among  them  which  is  indispensable  to  the  success  of  an 
army  against  this  rebellion. 

You  have  tried  many  expedients  against  our  warning,  and  failed.  At 
first  you  had  the  whole  North,  twenty  millions  of  people,  forgetting  their 
divisions  and  sustaining  the  Government  on  the  plain  question  for  the 
restoration  of  the  Constitution.  You  had  victories  on  that  policy.  Your 
organs,  like  the  "  Tribune,"  boasted,  after  the  fall  of  Sumter,  that 

"All  party  prejudices  and  passions  were  forgotten,  and  the  new  Administration, 
strengthened  by  an  assurance  of  popular  confidence,  stood  before  the  world  the  unques 
tioned  representative  of  the  whole  loyal  people  of  the  Union." 

Who  and  what  has  changed  all  that?  Your  President  and  his  aboli 
tion  advisers  and  policy.  The  proclamation  sounded ;  and  lo  !  the  re 
bellion  was  to  fall.  "  The  war  would  not  last  till  Christmas,"  said 
the  zealots  of  the  hour.  "  By  a  single  blow  the  President  has  palsied 
the  rebellion,"  they  said  again.  Fatal  delusions !  But  will  you  learn 


CIVIL   WAR.  317 

nothing?  This  bill  will  prove  more  impotent  against  the  South  and 
more  mischievous  in  the  North  than  your  proclamations  and  confisca 
tions. 

A  good  deal  has  been  said  about  the  Democratic  party  not  being  loyal. 
Why,  sir,  we  went  from  this  Hall  at  the  close  of  the  last  session  of  Con 
gress  and  found  the  President's  call  for  volunteers  among  the  people.  We 
went  before  our  constituents  and  asked  for  soldiers  to  fill  the  new  regi 
ments  called  for  by  the  Governors  in  pursuance  of  that  call.  My  colleague 
over  the  way  [Mr.  HARRISON]  will  bear  me  witness  with  what  zeal  we 
endeavored  to  fill  our  quotas  in  order  to  save  our  respective  counties  from 
a  draft.  lu  my  own  county,  at  the  capital  of  the  State,  we  succeeded  in 
raising  the  requisite  number,  and  there  was  no  draft.  My  colleagues 
[Mr.  WHITE,  Mr.  MORRIS,  Mr.  NOBLE,  and  others]  found  it  not  hard  by 
their  appeals  to  fill  the  call  in  their  localities.  This,  however,  was  before 
the  proclamation.  When  that  masterpiece  of  folly  and  treachery  was 
issued,  further  enlistments  became  almost  impossible.  We  could  then 
make  no  more  speeches  for  recruits.  Why  ?  We  had  told  the  people 
that  this  was  a  war  for  the  Union  and  for  the  Constitution.  When  it  was 
thus  perverted  by  base  treachery  and  falsehood  from  this,  its  proper  pur 
pose,  we  took  our  appeal  directly  to  the  people,  and  denounced  the  treachery 
and  unveiled  the  falsehood  of  this  Administration.  The  people  under 
stood  and  indorsed  us.  I  might  refer  you  to  resolutions  passed  by  the 
Democratic  Convention  of  Ohio,  wherein  we  said  to  the  people  that  the 
Democracy  were  willing  to  join  hand  in  hand  with  any  citizen  of  the  State 
to  strengthen  and  invigorate  the  Government  and  suppress  the  rebellion. 
They  deprecated  the  divisions  and  distractions  which  the  abolitionists  were 
forcing  upon  the  country  as  hostile  to  its  best  interests. 


NEGRO  SOLDIERS. 

NEGROES  IN  THE  REVOLUTIONARY  WAR — OBJECT  OP  THE  BILL — EFFECT   ON  EXCHANGE  OS 
PRISONERS DEMOCRATIC  SUPPORT  TO  THE  WAR. 

Delivered  on  January  30,  1863. 

Mr.  Cox  said :  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House,  and  espe 
cially  of  the  present  occupant  of  the  chair  [Mr.  McPiiERSON],  to  the 
remarks  made  by  him  in  reference  to  the  employment  of  negroes  in  the 
Revolutionary  war.  I  regret,  sir,  that  you  have  been  elevated  to  the  chair 
at  this  inopportune  time  ;  but  I  have  no  doubt  that  you  can  retire  with 
grace,  to  repel  any  thing  that  I  might  say  that  is  either  untrue  in  history, 
or  that  involves  a  false  inference.  If  I  understand  you,  sir,  you  argue 
that  there  was  a  settled  policy  in  revolutionary  times  for  the  reception  of 
negroes  into  our  service.  That  is  not  correct.  A  careful  reading  of  his 
tory  will  show  it.  [Mr.  MCPHERSON  here  left  the  chair,  calling  Mr.  SHEF 
FIELD  thereto.]  I  am  perfectly  willing,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  agree  with  the 
gentleman,  that  negroes  were  here  and  there  used  in  the  Revolution. 
There  were  a  number  of  instances  where  some  were  employed — not 


318  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

in  regiments  or  brigades,  as  it  is  claimed  here ;  but  many  blacks,  and 
perhaps  several  companies,  were  used  in  various  States  during  the  Revo 
lution.  The  most  conspicuous  instance  was  that  of  Rhode  Island.  She 
called  over  three  hundred  at  one  time,  when  there  was  an  overpowering 
necessity  for  every  man  in  that  little  colony  to  be  raised  ;  but,  sir,  these  were 
sporadic  cases,  here  and  there  a  negro  ;  here  and  there,  and  but  rarely,  a 
company.  There  was  no  system  of  colonial  policy  by  which  black  men 
were  organized.  There  were  some  black  men  in  the  army  in  despite  of 
law  and  orders  against  it ;  some  who  were  enlisted  when  there  was  no  law 
on  the  subject ;  and  in  a  few  cases,  there  were  black  men  enlisted  under 
the  law  of  certain  of  the  colonies ;  but  I  believe  all  this  was  done  under 
the  protest  of  the  Continental  Congress. 

Mr.  McPiiERSON.  I  do  not  wish  to  interrupt  the  gentleman  ;  but  I  shall 
be  very  glad  to  have  a  few  minutes,  after  he  has  finished  his  speech,  to 
give  my  version  of  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  only  authentic  return,  which  research  can  discover, 
of  negroes  employed  in  the  Revolution,  is  one  made  on  the  24th  of  August, 
1778,  on  the  call  of  the  Continental  Congress,  and  the  whole  number  of 
negroes  present  in  the  army  then,  of  all  conditions  and  grades  of  service, 
was  seven  hundred  and  fifty-five,  of  which  five  hundred  and  eighty-six 
were  reported  as  present.  I  know  not  how  they  were  used  particularly  ; 
but  doubtless  they  were  used  as  servants,  or  bootblacks,  or  teamsters,  or 
private  soldiers.  If  the  gentleman  has  any  thing  more  authentic,  I  would 
like  to  see  it.  But,  as  I  see  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  DAWES] 
listening  with  some  interest,  I  will  call  attention  to  the  revolutionary  pol 
icy  of  Massachusetts.  The  Governor  of  that  State  has  gone  home  with 
a  carte  blanche  in  his  pocket  to  raise  negro  soldiers — if  I  may  use  that 
white  term  with  reference  to  this  black  business. 

Mr.  ALDRICH  (in  his  seat).     Carte  black. 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  very  black.  I  know  it  is  the  supposition  among  per 
sons  who  do  not  understand  the  meaning  of  this  matter,  that  the  object  of 
Governor  Andrew  is  to  raise  all  the  negroes  he  can,  and  ship  them  out  of 
his  State.  I  know  that  he  refused  to  have  other  negroes  come  into  his 
State  from  the  South.  Now,  sir,  Massachusetts  has  a  very  peculiar  rec 
ord  in  reference  to  this  matter  in  the  Revolution.  As  early  as  1774  this 
subject  was  so  talked  about  as  to  be  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Conti 
nental  Congress.  It  was  talked  about  by  some  of  the  humanitarians  of 
that  day.  They  wanted  to  use  the  negroes,  not  so  much  for  the  purpose 
of  defending  colonial  independence  as  for  the  purpose  of  fighting  for  ne 
gro  liberty.  There  were  men  then  not  unlike  the  gentleman  from  Illi 
nois  [Mr.  LOVEJOY].  Yesterday,  when  trying  to  disguise  the  fact  that 
he  was  for  waging  this  war  for  negro  liberty,  before  he  got  through  the 
paragraph  he  confessed  the  whole  truth  by  saying  : 

"  '  But,'  say  gentlemen,  '  you  want  to  do  away  with  slavery.'  '  Certainly.'  *  Why  ?  ' 
'Because  in  suppressing  the  rebellion  and  preserving  the  Union,  it  is  necessary  as  a  means, 
and  not  as  an  end  ;  although  God  knows  the  means  are  just  such  means  as  I  desire  to  be 
used.  We  gain  a  double  object.'  '  That  I  never  deny.'  " 

"  A  double  object,"  is  it?  I  think,  sir,  that  the  dominant  portion  of 
the  party  on  the  other  side  have  had  a  double  object  from  the  beginning. 
A  double  object  in  this  matter  means  duplicity.  At  the  extra  session  of 


CIVIL   WAR.  319 

this  Congress,  on  the  22d  of  July,  1861,  they  voted  for  one  particular  line 
of  policy  upon  which  this  war  was  to  be  conducted.  They  then  seemed  to 
have  a  single  object ;  but  since  that  time  they  have  perverted,  or,  if  you 
please,  doubled  that  object.  This  bill  is  of  a  piece  with  their  whole  poli 
cy.  I  believe,  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  think  is  now  the  general  sentiment 
of  the  people,  that  that  policy  has  a  hidden  object ;  and  this  bill,  as  a  part 
of  it,  is  intended  to  make  this  Union  utterly  impossible. 

This  is  our  justification  for  the  extraordinary  proceedings  the  other 
night,  when  we  were  determined  to  use  all  the  means  which  the  laws  of 
this  House  gave,  to  prevent  the  passage  of  a  law  like  this,  which  is  aimed 
at  the  national  life.  The  gentlemen  from  the  border  States  here,  gentle 
men  from  Kentucky  and  Ohio — for  there  are  two  sides  to  the  border — 
understand  very  well  the  hidden  meaning  and  certain  effect  of  this  bill. 
Every  man  along  the  border  will  tell  you  that  the  Union  is  placed  in  new 
peril  if  you  pursue  this  policy  of  taking  the  slaves  from  their  masters  to 
arm  them  in  this  civil  strife.  It  will  only  keep  alive  and  aggravate  the 
alienation  of  sections,  which  had  its  beginning  in  hate,  and  will  have  its 
end  in  vengeance.  I  stated  as  my  reason  for  the  part  I  took  in  the  pro 
ceedings  of  our  eighteen  hours'  session,  that  this  bill  wras  a  part  of  the 
plot  to  drive  the  border  slave  States  out  of  the  Union,  or  to  place  them  in 
such  hostility  to  the  Government  as  to  hurl  our  armies  at  their  throats 
and  strangle  their  political  life.  I  have  been  confirmed  in  my  belief  by 
the  statements  of  the  eloquent  members  from  Kentucky,  as  well  as  by 
the  course  of  discussion  on  the  other  side. 

There  is  no  analogy,  as  I  was  proceeding  to  show,  between  the  use 
of  negro  soldiers  in  the  Revolution  and  their  use  at  the  present  time. 
Why  ?  Because  in  the  Revolution  negroes  were  used — when  used  at  all, 
and  that  very  rarely — on  the  side  of  their  loyal  masters,  and  with  their 
full  consent.  They  stood  by  their  side  to  defend  colonial  independence,  not 
to  strike  for  their  own  freedom.  They  were  not  then  sought  to  be  reduced 
to  fiends,  to  bring  about  San  Domingo  insurrections.  They  were  used  to 
defend  our  own  policy,  our  own  Government.  No  social  system  was  then 
sought  to  be  uptorn.  No  labor  system  was  then  to  be  destroyed.  When 
such  objects  were  hinted,  prompt  protest  was  entered  against  them.  This 
matter  was  brought  before  the  Continental  Congress  in  October,  1774,  in 
a  formal  suggestion  of  "  the  propriety  that,  while  we  are  attempting  to 
free  ourselves  from  our  present  embarrassments  and  preserve  ourselves 
from  slavery,  we  also  ought  to  take  into  consideration  the  state  of  cir 
cumstances  of  the  negro  slaves  in  this  Province."  A  motion  was  made 
in  the  Congress  for  a  committee  to  take  the  subject  into  consideration. 
This  produced  some  debate.  When  the  question  was  put,  "Whether  the 
matter  should  now  subside  ?  "  it  passed.  The  matter  subsided.  In  May, 
1775,  there  was  a  committee  of  safety,  upon  which  were  Hancock,  War 
ren,  and  others,  who  considered  this  matter,  and.  with  the  purest  patriot 
ism  embodied  their  judgment  in  the  following  resolution  : 

"  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  as  the  contest  now  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  Colonies  respects  the  liberties  and  privileges  of  the  latter,  which  the  Colonies  are 
determined  to  maintain,  that  the  admission  of  any  persons  as  soldiers  into  the  army,  only 
such  as  are  freemen,  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  to  be  supported,  and  would  reflect 
dishonor  on  this  Colony  ;  and  that  no  slaves  be  admitted  into  the  army  on  any  considera 
tion  whatever." 


320  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Has  Massachusetts  progressed  or  degenerated  since  that  significant 
resolve  ?  This  resolution  was  communicated  to  the  Provincial  Congress 
on  the  6th  of  June,  1775.  It  was  read  and  tabled,  because  the  Provincial 
Congress  would  not  even  consider  the  proposition  for  organizing  and  arm 
ing  a  servile  race  in  the  war  of  Independence. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  MCPHERSON]  quotes  the 
great  name  of  Washington  to  sustain  this  bill  of  abomination.  Let  us 
consult  the  truth  of  history.  Washington  took  command  of  the  army  on 
the  3d  of  January,  1775  ;  and  in  regular  instructions  to  the  recruiting 
officers  in  Massachusetts,  issued  from  his  headquarters  at  Cambridge,  on 
the  10th  of  July,  he  prohibited  the  enrolment  of  any  "negro"  in  the 
army.  The  same  action  was  taken  in  subsequent  periods  of  the  Revolu 
tionary  history.  At  a  council  of  war,  held  at  Washington's  headquarters 
on  the  8th  of  October,  1775,  where  Washington  was  present,  with  Gen 
crals  Lee,  Putnam,  Heath,  Gates,  Greene,  and  others,  the  question  was 
proposed,  "  whether  it  was  advisable  to  enlist  any  negroes  in  the  new 
army  ;  and  if  so,  whether  there  should  be  any  distinction  between  such  as 
are  slaves  and  those  who  are  free."  It  was  agreed  unanimously  to  reject 
all  slaves,  and,  by  a  great  majority,  to  reject  negroes  altogether.  Will 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  bring  any  authority  to  show  that  Wash 
ington  ever  reconsidered  that  determination  ?  I  know  that  afterwards  on 
one  occasion,  in  the  case  of  certain  negroes,  who  had  been  in  the  army, 
and  had  served  in  some  situations,  and  served  faithfully  by  the  side  of 
their  friends  and  masters,  and  whose  reenlistment  was  urgently  desired, 
he  did  make  an  exception ;  but  his  general  and  fixed  policy,  as  well  as 
that  of  the  Congress,  was  against  the  use  of  negroes  in  the  military  ser 
vice.  Gentlemen  have  been  led  into  their  historical  mistakes  on  this  sub 
ject  by  finding  such  exceptional  cases,  and  exaggerating  them  in  the  fog 
of  their  own  fancies.  So,  in  the  present  war,  black  soldiers  have  been 
used  in  Louisiana,  it  is  said,  by  Governor  Moore,  on  the  rebel  side ;  and 
there  may  have  been  a  few  employed  on  the  Chickahominy,  who  may 
have  shot  some  of  our  soldiers  there.  And  gentlemen  have  rashly  inferred 
from  this  that  there  is  a  general  system  of  organizing  negroes  for  soldiers 
in  the  Confederate  army. 

Mr.  McPHERSON.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  whether  he  can 
speak  as  to  the  correctness  or  falsity  of  the  statement  which  I  see  in  the 
newspapers,  that  it  has  been  decided  by  the  war  department  at  Richmond, 
that  any  person  in  the  rebel  States  having  any  white  blood  in  his  veins 
is  looked  upon  as  liable  to  conscription,  thus  revoking  the  rule  of  law  and 
practice,  with  the  evident  purpose  of  drawing  mulattoes  of  every  hue  into 
the  military  service? 

Mr.  Cox.  If  that  is  the  case,  they  have,  since  this  war  began,  re 
versed  entirely  the  status  of  the  African  descendants.  I  have  no  knowl 
edge  of  any  such  decision  as  that  referred  to  by  the  gentleman.  Certainly 
I  would  not  predicate  legislation  here  on  any  such  decision,  even  if  it  was 
more  than  rumor. 

Mr.  WICKLIFFE.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  allow  me  to  state  a 
fact?  When  the  army  under  General  Bragg  left  the  town  where  I  live, 
at  the  approach  of  Buell,  last  September,  some  sick  officers  were  left  be 
hind.  I  conversed  with  them,  because  I  had  heard  it  stated  that  the  rebels 


CIVIL   WAK.  321 

were  employing  the  slaves  in  the  army,  and  I  was  assured  by  them — and 
they  were  gentlemen  although  they  were  rebels — that  the  statement  was 
untrue,  that  there  was  not  a  single  negro  employed  as  a  soldier  in  their 
army,  though  there  were  negroes  in  it  employed  as  servants  and  waiters. 
I  state  this  on  their  authority,  and  I  believe  they  told  the  truth. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  McPnERSON] 
does  not  give  any  authority  for  his  statement,  except  that  he  has  seen  it 
in  the  newspapers. 

Mr.  McPiiERSON.  I  do  not  assert  that  fact,  but  there  are  other  facts 
which  I  may  assert  in  the  discussion.  I  do  not  know  what  the  authority 
is  for  that  statement. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  do  not  generally  act  myself  on  these  unofficial  assertions. 
"When  an  order  to  that  effect  is  issued  from  the  Confederate  Government, 
it  will  be  time  enough  to  consider  what  our  action  shall  be,  by  way  of  re 
taliation.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  this  difficulty  in  beginning  this 
system  of  negro  enlistment.  It  has,  no  doubt,  occurred  to  many  gentle 
men  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber.  It  is  this  :  if  we  employ  negroes 
as  soldiers,  and  they  are  not  employed  on  the  rebel  side,  our  negro  sol 
diers,  if  captured  by  the  enemy,  will  be  turned  over  to  the  States  South 
for  punishment,  not  according  to  the  military  code,  but  according  to  the 
laws  of  those  States.  Thus  we  would  place  the  negroes  in  great  peril  per 
haps  of  life,  without  having  any  means  on  our  part  adequately  to  redress 
their  wrongs.  Moreover,  the  Confederate  States,  if  they  have  not  begun 
this  business  of  enlisting  colored  men,  will  not  treat  our  black  soldiers  as 
the  equals  of  their  white  soldiers  or  of  our  white  soldiers  ;  and  the  result 
will  be,  as  many  negroes  at  the  North  are  shrewd  enough  to  foresee,  that 
they  will,  if  captured,  receive  none  of  the  advantages  of  the  laws  of  war, 
but  all  the  terrible  consequences  of  being  outlawed  from  the  international 
code,  slavery,  imprisonment,  and  perhaps  death.  And  how,  sir,  can  we 
retaliate  for  any  such  injuries  or  outrages?  As  the  gentleman  from 
Kansas  argued  the  other  day,  and  as  Vattel  argued  before  him,  a  rebel 
lion,  when  formidable,  demands,  in  the  name  of  humanity,  the  observance 
of  the  laws  of  civilized  warfare,  the  laws  of  moderation  and  honor.  There 
is  a  distinct  society,  organized  de  facto,  in  the  South  ;  and  the  laws  of 
war  obtain  the  same  as  between  two  nations  with  regard  to  prisoners  of 
war.  These  men  in  the  South  have  great  power,  and  although  it  may  have 
been  obtained  wrongfully  and  outrageously,  we  must  legislate  on  the  facts 
as  they  exist.  We  must  not  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  they  are  a 
power  so  formidable  that  we  cannot,  as  an  act  of  humanity  to  our  soldiers, 
refuse  to  observe  the  laws  of  war,  not  as  we  would  interpret  them,  but  as 
they  also  may  interpret  them.  No  genuine  friend  of  the  negro  would  try 
to  persuade  him  to  take  the  position  of  a  soldier  in  our  army,  knowing 
how  the  Confederate  Government  has  determined  to  treat  negro  soldiers. 
The  men  who  would  try  to  dragoon  him  into  that  position  are  not  his 
friends.  The  poor  negro,  if  he  survive  this  conflict,  will  bitterly  curse 
the  very  men  who  seem  most  to  champion  him,  but  whose  championship 
has  in  it  more  of  political  consideration  than  of  generous  feeling. 

Mr.  EDWARDS.     I  understand  the  gentleman  that  if  these  black  sol 
diers  in  our  army  should  be  captured  by  the  enemy  and  be  handed  over  to 
the  civil  authorities  to  be  treated  as  felons,  and  their  lives  taken,  or  any 
21 


322  EIGHT   TEAKS    EST   CONGRESS. 

other  consequence  visited  upon  them  not  known  to  the  rules  of  civilized 
warfare,  that  the  United  States  Government  would  have  no  remedy. 

Mr.  Cox.     What  is  your  remedy  ? 

Mr.  EDWARDS.     Retaliation. 

Mr.  Cox.  Retaliation — that  is  a  rule  which  will  soon  turn  this  into 
a  barbarous  war.  It  has  no  limit — no  law.  It  has  but  one  end — bloody 
extermination. 

Mr.  EDWARDS.  I  would  hang  or  shoot  one  of  their  soldiers  every 
time  they  hung  or  shot  one  of  ours. 

Mr.  Cox.  But  suppose  that  they  took  the  black  soldiers  they  cap 
tured  and  made  slaves  of  them  ;  what  would  the  gentleman  do  then  ?  Do 
you  not  remember  what  President  Lincoln  said  to  those  Chicago  preachers 
who  called  upon  him  to  issue  his  proclamation  ?  Do  you  remember  what 
he  said  in  reference  to  the  free  negroes  captured  by  the  rebels  at  Harper's 
Ferry?  He  said,  "  What  can  I  do?  Mr.  Greeley  complains  that  f  do  not 
do  something  to  reclaim  them,  or  revenge  them.  But  what  can  I  do?" 
I  ask  the  gentleman  what  could  he  have  done?  What  has  the  President 
done  to  bring  back  those  free  negroes  captured  at  Harper's  Ferry  by  the 
rebels  ?  Would  you  have  him  retaliate  upon  white  rebels  because  they 
abuse  the  captured  negroes ?  You  will  answer,  Yes.  Then  what?  Re 
taliation  again  from  them  upon  our  white  soldiers,  and  so  on,  until  the 
war  becomes  unbearable  to  the  Christian  world,  and  an  outrage  upon  all 
civilized  codes. 

Mr.  EDWARDS.  I  answer  the  gentleman  that,  under  the  laws  of  war, 
this  Government  is  authorized  to  treat  those  whom  we  capture  in  battle 
as  those  captured  from  us  are  treated  by  the  enemy.  I  ask  the  gentle 
man  from  Ohio,  now,  whether  if  Jefferson  Davis  should  carry  out  his 
threats  against  those  he  has  captured  from  us,  and  subject  to  ignominy 
our  white  officers,  it  would  ifot  be  the  duty  of  this  Government  to  visit 
the  same  penalties  upon  the  rebel  officers  whom  we  have  captured  from 
them? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  know  of  no  other  way  now  by  which  properly  to  defend 
our  officers  who  are  captured.  Such  outrages  will  correct  themselves. 
But  would  the  gentleman  pursue  a  policy  which  would  aggravate  the  war, 
by  causing  our  white  men  to  be  punished  in  return  for  the  punishment  of 
rebel  white  soldiers,  who  might  be  punished  in  retaliation  for  the  punish 
ment  of  our  negro  soldiers  who  may  be  captured  ?  I  will  remind  the 
gentleman  that  there  are  a  great  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  carrying 
out  his  theory.  This  is  a  formidable  rebellion,  so  formidable  as  to  be 
able  to  interpret  practically  the  law  of  nations.  Whether  right  or  not, 
the  rebel  rulers  hold  that  the  use  of  slaves  by  us  is  an  outrage  upon  the 
laws  of  civilized  warfare.  If  they  act  on  that  doctrine,  again  I  ask,  with 
the  Executive,  what  are  we  to  do  about  it?  This  Government  once  un 
dertook  to  punish  certain  men  as  pirates.  They  were  put  in  prison,  tried, 
convicted,  and,  I  believe,  sentenced  to  death.  But  we  were  advised  that 
the  South  would  retaliate  ;  and  they  did.  They  placed  some  of  our  best 
officers  in  prisons,  and  held  them  as  felons.  What  did  our  Government 
do  ?  Did  it  hang  the  pirates  ?  Why  not  ?  It  backed  squarely  out  of  its 
position. 


CIVIL  WAE.  ^  323 

Mr.  KELLEY.  If  tlic  gentleman  will  permit  me,  I  want  to  say  that 
not  one  of  these  men  was  sentenced. 

Mr.  Cox.     Why  were  they  not  sentenced  ? 

Mr.  KELLEY.  There  was  no  final  judgment  against  any  of  them ; 
there  were  motions  for  new  trials  pending  in  all  the  cases  at  the  time  this 
arrangement  was  made. 

Mr.  Cox.  Ah !  What  arrangement  was  made  by  which  these  men 
were  not  hung  ? 

Mr.  KELLEY.     That  I  cannot  tell. 

Mr.  Cox.  They  were  exchanged  as  prisoners  of  war.  The  Govern 
ment  could  not  help  it.  I  do  not  complain  of  the  Government  for  that. 
It  was  an  inexorable  necessity.  A  President  that  cannot  go  fifty  miles 
south  of  his  capital  is  limited  de  facto  as  to  his  power,  though  de  jure  his 
authority  may  run  to  the  Gulf.  This  is,  I  repeat,  a  formidable  rebellion. 
It  interposes  formidable  obstacles  in  the  way  of  your  plans  for  making 
black  soldiers,  which  it  will  be  well  to  heed.  You  must  cease  underrating 
this  rebellion.  You  must  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  this  South 
ern  Confederacy  has  a  power  of  checking  and  retaliating ;  otherwise  you 
will  EO  imperil  our  white  soldiers,  to  say  nothing  of  the  blacks,  that  the 
army  will  lack  in  recruits  and  lose  its  efficiency. 

I  did  not  intend  to  refer  to  any  thing  except  the  historical  question 
connected  with  the  use  of  negroes  in  the  revolutionary  war.  I  could 
bring  proof  after  proof  that,  as  a  system  of  policy,  the  negroes  were  ruled 
out  of  our  revolutionary  struggle.  On  the  18th  of  October,  1775,  a  com 
mittee  of  conference,  consisting  of  Dr.  Franklin,  Benjamin  Harrison,  and 
Thomas  Lynch,  with  the  deputy  Governors  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island,  and  the  committee  of  the  Council  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  met  at 
Cambridge  to  confer  with  General  Washington.  Their  object  was  to  re- 
invigorate  the  army.  On  the  23d  of  October,  says  the  historian  (Histor 
ical  Notes,  &c.,  by  George  H.  Moore,  librarian  of  the  New  York  Histor 
ical  Society,  p.  7),  the  negro  question  was  presented  and  disposed  of  as 
follows : 

"  Ought  not  negroes  to  be  excluded  from  the  new  enlistment,  especially  such  as  are 
slaves  ?     All  were  thought  improper  by  the  council  officers. 
"  Agreed  that  they  be  rejected  altogether." 

Again,  in  general  orders,  November  12, 1775,  Washington  says  : 

"  Neither  negroes,  boys  unable  to  bear  arms,  nor  old  men  unfit  to  enduro  the  fatigues 
of  the  campaign,  are  to  be  enlisted." 

One  of  my  colleagues  [Mr.  HUTCHINS]  yesterday  quoted  Colonel  Lau- 
rens,  of  South  Carolina,  as  .an  authority  to  show  that  negroes  were  used 
in  the  Revolution.  Colonel  Laurens  was  a  zealous  and  enthusiastic  friend 
of  independence,  and  favored  the  use  of  the  negro  as  the  aid  of  his  mas 
ter  in  that  struggle.  His  motive  was  good,  noble,  and  patriotic.  The 
English  Generals  Dunmore  and  Clinton  had  attempted  to  do  what  is  now 
sought  to  be  done,  hurl  the  negroes  into  the  \var  as  an  element  of  diabolic 
insurrection.  Proffers  were  made  to  slaves  to  run  away  and  enlist  in  the 
English  army.  Thousands  of  slaves  were  lost.  The  Southern  States 
were  threatened  by  an  army  which  would  overrun  and  desolate  it ;  and  in 
the  emergency  Congress  consented  that  the  project  of  enlisting  the  negroes 


324  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

should  be  submitted  to  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  or  the  governing 
powers  of  those  States.  Was  this  the  adoption  of  the  system  of  negro 
service  ?  Not  at  all.  Laurens  went  to  South  Carolina  and  urged  his  scheme. 
He  had  some  strong  men  to  indorse  it,  not  for  lighting  the  flames  of  ser 
vile  war  or  inflaming  anew  the  raging  elements  of  a  civil  war  growing 
out  of  the  agitation  of  the  servile  relation,  but  to  prevent  these  very  re 
sults,  by  organizing  the  slaves  under  and  with  their  masters  for  the  pro 
tection  of  both  from  a  foreign  foe.  What  became  of  this  project?  The 
historian  tells  us  that  it  encountered  at  once  that  strong,  deep-seated  feel 
ing  nurtured  from  earliest  infancy  among  that  people,  which  was  ready 
to  decide,  with  instinctive  promptness,  against  "  a  measure  of  so  threat 
ening  an  aspect,  and  so  offensive  to  that  republican  pride  which  disdains 
to  commit  the  defence  of  the  country  to  servile  hands,  or  share  with  a 
color  to  which  the  idea  of  inferiority  is  inseparably  connected,  the  profes 
sion  of  arms,  and  that  approximation  of  condition  which  must  exist  be 
tween  the  regular  soldier  and  the  militia  man."  This  reasoning  of  the 
elder  day  is  applicable  now.  Men  are  black  yet  and  white  yet,  and  time 
has  not  changed  them.  We  cannot  help  the  fact  that  the  negro  is 
black.  We  cannot  reverse  the  established  order  of  Providence  and 
make  him  white.  And  if  we  cannot  do  that,  we  can  never  eradicate  from 
the  great  body  of  the  white  people  of  America  that  prejudice  against  the 
black  race  which  has  been  carried  from  private  life  into  the  public  ser 
vice,  and  which,  if  you  run  counter  to  it,  will  destroy  the  vigor  and  esprit 
of  the  army.  Why,  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  one-third  of  our  present  army 
is  made  up  of  Irishmen.  We  know  that  a  great  part  of  the  spirit  of  our 
army  comes  from  the  Celtic  stock.  Look  at  your  Massachusetts  regiments. 
I  think  that  you  will  find  in  those  regiments  a  majority  of  Irishmen.  I 
tell  you,  sir,  these  Irishmen  will  not  fight  side  by  side  with  the  negro. 
You  might  as  well  be  warned  of  these  things  in  time.  You  would  listen 
to  such  warnings,  if  indeed  you  wished  the  army  to  succeed,  and  the 
Union  restored. 

I  know  that  in  the  revolutionary  times  some  States  did  allow  negroes 
to  enlist.  New  Hampshire  allowed  them.  New  Jersey  disallowed  thti 
practice,  true  as  ever  to  the  most  sensible  views  of  public  duty.  New 
York  did  allow  it  at  one  time,  but  I  think  discouraged  it  as  demoralizing 
and  degrading.  We  have  a  report  of  a  regiment  raised  in  Massachusetts 
and  quartered  in  New  York,  in  which  there  were  a  few  negroes.  Of  the 
effect  of  their  military  companionship  upon  the  whites,  it  is  said  : 

"  Even  in  this  regiment  there  were  a  number  of  negroes,  which,  to  persona  unaccus 
tomed  to  such  associations,  had  a  disagreeable,  degrading  etlect." 

I  do  not  understand  the  arguments  made  on  the  other  side  of  the  House 
in  favor  of  this  measure.  Some  gentlemen  propose  not  to  mix  black  and 
white  in  the  same  company  or  regiment.  Why  ?  Give  me  a  reason  for 
it,  and  I  will  give  you  the  reason  why  they  should  not  be  mixed  in  the 
same  army.  Gentlemen  should  not  be  so  sensitive,  who  are  willing  that 
negroes  should  go  into  the  same  army. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  reason  why  this  side  of  the  House  has  fought  this 
question  so  pertinaciously  is  the  one  which  I  gave  when  I  asked  to  be  ex 
cused  from  voting,  that  it  was  a  part  of  a  plot  to  drive  the  border  States 


CIVIL   WAE.  325 

out  of  the  Union.  Gentlemen  know  very  well,  if  they  know  any  thing  of 
the  people  of  the  border  States  north  and  south  of  the  Ohio  as  represented 
in  or  out  of  the  army,  that  they  will  never  consent  to  the  formation  of 
this  force  of  black  janizaries  for  any  purpose.  They  will  but  incite  the 
people  to  mobs  and  mutiny.  The  people  are  not  yet  so  degraded  as  to 
desire  to  save  their  Government  by  the  aid  of  black  brigades  ;  nor  do  I 
believe  the  projectors  of  this  measure  expect  to  save  the  Government  by 
such  means.  But  if  they  had  racked  their  brains  for  a  contrivance  of 
mischief  to  prevent  a  hearty  cooperation  by  the  border  States  with  our 
cause,  they  could  not  find  a  more  mischievously  diabolical  plan  than  this 
bill.  There  are  momentous  consequences  dependent  on  this  sort  of  legis 
lation.  I  beg  the  House  to  pause  before  they  adopt  it.  This  bill  pro 
posed  at  first  to  raise  a  negro  army  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand.  I 
believe  that  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr. 
STEVENS]  is  not  limited  to  any  number.  The  law  as  now  existing  gives 
the  President  the  fullest  discretion  to  "  employ"  negroes  in  the  service. 
He  may  use  these  black  brigades  wherever  and  however  he  pleases.  Do 
you  believe  that  such  a  scheme  will  ever  be  started  or  pursued  with  suc 
cess  ?  Will  the  people,  sir,  allow  it  to  go  on  ?  Gentlemen  forget  that  the 
people  exist,  and  have  spoken.  This  legislation  is  in  total  disregard  and 
contempt,  of  their  voice.  They  have  spoken  for  the  Democracy.  They 
have  a  right  thus  to  speak ;  a  right  which  the  gentleman  from  Illinois 
[Mr.  LOVEJOY]  undertook  to  exercise  on  behalf  of  the  honest  masses  and 
against  the  dishonest  leaders  of  the  Democracy !  He  to  speak  for  the 
Democratic  people  !  In  his  speech  of  yesterday  he  more  than  intimated 
that  the  Democracy  were  sympathizers  with  secession.  He  was  called  to 
an  account  by  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  DUNN],  who  said  that 
such  remarks  would  have  a  bad  effect  in  the  country. 

Mr.  WICKLIFFE.     And  in  the  army. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  quote  the  reprimand  of  the  gentleman  from  Indiana 
[Mr.  DUNN],  for  this  slander  upon  the  Democracy : 

"  I  have  no  especial  regard  for  that  institution,  but  I  am  afraid  that  such  general, 
sweeping  denunciations  of  the  Democratic  party  as  the  gentleman  has  indulged  in  may 
have  a  bad  effect.  I,  at  least,  have  full  faith  in  the  loyalty  of  the  great  masses  of  the 
people  of  the  loyal  States,  no  matter  to  what  party  they  may  belong." 

What  did  he  mean  by  that?  Why  would  the  slander  of  the  Jacobin 
from  Illinois  produce  a  bad  effect  in  the  country  ?  Was  it  because  it  was 
untrue  ?  Was  it  because  it  was  unwise  ?  What  was  the  object  of  that 
particular  reprimand?  I  will  tell  you.  The  gentleman  from  Indiana 
knows  that  the  great  body  of  this  army  that  answered  the  call  of  the 
President,  and  entered  into  a  war  to  be  carried  on  in  pursuance  of  the 
resolution  of  the  extra  session  of  Congress,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN],  went  out  to  fight  the  battle  of  the  Union 
and  the  Constitution,  and  when  that  object  was  accomplished,  they  be 
lieved  the  war  should  stop.  They  never  went  into  a  crusade  of  abolition ; 
and  when  denounced  as  secessionists,  because  not  abolitionists,  the  "  bad 
effect  of  such  sweeping  denunciations  "  might  appear  in  both  army  and 
people.  After  this  overhauling  of  the  Illinois  member  by  the  member 
from  Indiana,  the  former  changed  his  denunciations  from  the  Democracy 


326  EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

to  its  leaders,  here  and  elsewhere.     The  denunciation  gained  nothing  in 
truth  or  decency  by  the  change.     Here  is  what  he  said : 

"  I  did  not  refer  to  the  honest  masses  of  the  Democratic  party.  If  they  had  seen  the 
cloven  foot  manifested  by  the  Democratic  leaders  in  this  House,  and  in  different  portions 
of  the  country,  they  would  never  have  given  them  a  seat  here.  Governor  Seymour  woul  J 
not  have  been  elected  Govenior  of  New  York.  The  people  know  them  now.  We  knc\r 
that  the  leaders  were  in  sympathy  with  the  secessionists,  but  it  did  not  manifest  itself. 
The  emancipation  policy  of  the  President  brought  it  out.  Last  year  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  eulogized  the  President.  He  almost  put  him  on  a  niche  by  the  side  of  Wash 
ington.  We  have  not  heard  one  word  of  eulogy  of  the  President  from  that  gentleman 
at  this  session." 

The  member  from  Illinois  thought  that  the  President's  emancipation 
proclamation  was  like  Ithuriel's  spear,  that  it  had  developed  the  seces 
sion  sympathies  of  the  Democratic  party,  or  of  its  representatives  here. 
I  wanted  to  remind  the  gentleman  at  the  time,  that  the  u  diamond-pointed 
proclamation  "  was  issued  thirty  days  before  the  election  ;  and  that  as  soon 
as  it  appeared,  the  people  took  the  alarm,  and  they  gave  an  unrivalled  ma 
jority  to  the  Democrats  over  their  opponents.  The  other  side  of  the 
Chamber  was  defeated  by  that  unwise,  ill-timed,  and  seditious  proclama 
tion. 

The  gentleman  from  Illinois  said  the  other  day,  that  he  thought  there 
would  be  a  reversal  of  the  late  elections,  and  that  he  looked  forward  with 
pleasure  to  that  result.  Some  time  ago  he  said  that  we  could  not  beat 
them  again.  Perhaps  not,  and  for  a  good  reason  ;  for  his  remark  reminds 
me  of  the  dog  which  had  his  tail  cut  off,  and  then  turned  around  to  the 
man  and  said,  "  You  cannot  do  that  again."  [Great  laughtar.]  Why, 
sir,  the  late  elections  took  from  that  side  of  the  House  from  twenty  to 
thirty  members,  and  added  them  to  the  Democratic  side. 

The  gentleman  said  something  about  the  secession  sympathy  of  the 
Governor  of  New  York  ;  that  he  did  not  represent  the  loyal  element  of 
that  State.  If  the  Governor  elected  by  the  people  does  not  represent  tho 
loyal  element,  who  does?  If  the  gentlemen  reelected  to  this  House  do 
not  represent  the  loyal  sentiment,  who  does  ?  I  would  like  to  know 
whether  my  colleagues  from  Ohio  on  the  other  side  represent  the  loyal 
sentiment  of  Ohio  ?  If  they  do,  that  loyal  sentiment  is  in  a  minority  ; 
and  that  is  not  an  unpleasant  message  to  send  out  to  Jefferson  Davis.  This 
vituperation  is  a  slander  upon  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  North. 
We  on  this  side  are  the  representatives  of  the  people.  We  have  no  sym 
pathy  with  secession  ;  neither  have  the  people  of  the  North  ;  none.  We 
have  in  our  own  way  sustained  this  Government.  I  have  voted  all  tho 
men  and  money  last  session  and  this  session  to  carry  on  this  war.  But, 
notwithstanding  all  this,  we  are,  forsooth,  to  be  stigmatized  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Illinois  as  secession  sympathizers !  A  few  days  ago,  in  the 
same  strain  of  vituperation,  he  took  me  to  task,  too,  for  a  speech  on  Puri 
tanism,  which  I  made  in  New  York  city.  For  lack  of  something  better, 
he  referred  to  my  small  size.  My  only  response  to  this  coarse  and  irrele 
vant  mode  of  debate,  is  this  epitaph  for  the  gentleman,  which  I  once  met 
with,  and  which,  slightly  changed,  would  answer  all  that  he  can  say  of 
the  Democracy  during  his  life,  and  suit  his  case  very  appropriately  after 
death : 


CIVIL  WAE.  327 

"  Beneath  this  stone  OWEN  LOVEJOY  lies, 
Little  in  every  thing — except  in  size  ;  [Laughter.] 
What  though  his  burly  body  fills  this  hole, 
Yet  through  hell's  keyhole  crept  his  little  soul."     [Great  laughter.] 


PERSONAL  LIBERTY. 

MILITARY   ORDERS  AGAINST  FREE  SPEECH — QUESTION   IN   MR.  VALLANDIGHAM's  CASE. 

A  FEW  days  after  the  arrest  of  Mr.  Vallandigham,  at  the  annual  May 
Convention  of  the  Democracy  of  Licking  County,  Ohio,  MR.  Cox  spoke 
as  follows : — Citizens  of  Licking :  In  the  last  Congress  you  were  my 
constituents.  It  is  proper  that  I  should  answer  your  call  to  address  you ; 
for  you  should  know  every  reason  for  every  vote  I  gave  as  your  Repre 
sentative.  I  shall  not  be  deterred  from  this  duty  to  you  by  any  fear  from 
any  quarter ;  nor  shall  recent  events  and  daily  threats  provoke  me  to 
utter  sentiments  less  patriotic  or  more  immoderate  than  I  have  been  wont 
to  utter.  Come  threats,  come  imprisonment,  come  torture,  or  come  death 
itself,  my  lips  shall  not  be  locked.  I  shall  do  this  to-day,  not  in  the  spirit 
of  bravado,  uot  for  any  sickly  desire  for  martyrdom ;  but  because  I  re 
spect  the  law,  as  the  supreme  authority  and  rule  of  my  conduct.  If  I  speak 
in  this  spirit,  I  may  bring  the  policy  of  the  Administration  into  disrepute, 
but  I  shall  magnify  the  Government  thereby. 

General  Hascall,  in  his  order  No.  38,  has  interdicted  all  such  speaking 
as  will  make  the  Administration  disreputable  ;  and  he  has  said  that  Gen 
eral  Burnside  has  approved  of  that  order.  I  hope  this  is  not  true.  Gen 
eral  Burnside  could  not  have  approved  of  that  order,  and  then  have  told 
Judge  Leavitt  in  his  return  to  the  habeas  corpus  in  Vallandigham's  case, 
that  "  if  the  people  do  not  approve  the  policy  of  the  Administration,  they 
can  change  the  constitutional  authorities  of  the  Government  at  the  proper 
time  and  in  the  proper  method."  What  time  and  method  ?  At  and  by  the 
elections  provided  by  law.  To  this  we  all  agree.  .  No  going  to  jail  for  say 
ing  that.  Nor  is  General  Burnside  so  absurd  as  to  accord  to  us  the  priv 
ilege  of  election,  without  the  means  to  make  up  our  minds  as  to  the  policy 
of  men  to  be  voted  for  ;  for  he  goes  on  to  say :  "  Let  them  freely  discuss 
the  policy  in  a  proper  tone."  Very  good,  I  agree  to  that.  No  bonds  for 
me  yet.  If  therefore  by  a  "  proper  tone  "  I  should  bring  the  Administra 
tion  into  disrepute,  General  Burnside  will  not  send  me  to  prison.  Indeed, 
I  do  not  think  an  improper  tone  can  ever  bring  any  one  into  disrepute  ex 
cept  him  who  uses  it.  But  General  Burnside  would  stop  what  he  calls 
"  license  and  intemperate  discussion."  Had  such  discussion  been  prohib 
ited  years  ago,  this  war  would  not  be  on  us  now.  As  to  the  propriety  of 
stopping  that  sort  of  discussion  by  military  arrests,  even  if  they  were  legal, 
I  dissent ;  but  as  to  the  bad  taste  and  policy  of  such  discussion  I  should 
agree.  No  "  offence  "  in  saying  that,  I  trust.  The  same  thing  has  been 
said  in  various  ways  since  men  wrote  with  the  stylus,  or  Cadmus  made 
the  alphabet.  Indeed,  he  weakens  his  cause,  who  uses  an  intemperate 
or  licentious  tone.  Is  he  therefore  to  be  suppressed?  His  statements 
may  be  falsehoods,  his  logic  fallacies,  his  principles  abhorrent,  and  his 


328  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

motives  base  ;  all  these  do  not  furnish  a  reason  why  he  should  be  pro 
hibited  from  uttering  his  views.  Why,  even  the  New  York  "Tribune" 
has  said  that  "our  Federal  and  State  Constitutions  do  not  recognize  per 
verse  opinions,  nor  unpatriotic  speeches,  as  grounds  of  infliction."  We 
must,  to  be  faithful  citizens,  take  the  dross  with  the  gold,  in  the  current 
discussions  of  the  day.  Better  let  the  little  speck  of  license  remain  upon 
the  eye,  than  put  out  the  orbs  of  public  intelligence,  and  live  in  sightless 
and  despotic  gloom.  The  people  of  this  land  cannot  change  their  nature 
nor  their  education.  Much  as  they  may  deprecate  bad  sentiments,  they 
prefer  to  sec  them  flash  like  powder  innocuously  above  ground,  than,  pent 
up,  explode  with  fearful  ruin  and  combustion.  How  can  the  laggard 
authorities  be  urged  to  duty  and  tyrannical  officials  be  lashed  into  dis 
cretion,  especially  in  time  of  war,  when  power  tends  to  play  fantastic 
tricks  and  aggrandize  its  importance  and  function,  except  by  bold  discus 
sion?  In  the  Cabinet,  in  the  public  Assemblage,  in  the  Court,  in  the 
Legislature,  among  all  parties,  everywhere,  Reason  should  be  allowed  a 
free  combat  with  Error.  If  Error  strikes  foul,  the  public  will  know  how 
to  award  the  prize.  It  is  in  the  spirit  I  have  indicated,  of  decorous  and 
discreet  moderation,  that  I  propose  to  discuss  the  question,  uppermost  in 
your  mind,  connected  with  the  arrest  of  Mr.  Vallandigham.  It  is  unne 
cessary  for  me  to  denounce  his  arrest  as  illegal.  I  come  not  to  stimulate 
passion.  I  ask  you  to  practise  the  courage  of  endurance,  to  the  end  that 
we  may  more  speedily  have  a  remedy.  No  amount  of  temporary  restraint 
will  prevent  popular  action.  As  a  matter  of  philosophy,  and  not  as  a  de 
fiance,  I  state  what  you  know,  that  Democratic  thought  is  irrcpressibly 
outspoken ;  and  that  for  every  Democrat  restrained,  a  hundred  will  leap 
to  his  place  and  court  the  honors  of  persecution. 

The  question  involved  in  Mr.  Vallandigham's  arrest  does  not  concern 
him  alone.  If  it  is  a  breach  of  law,  it  involves  the  fate  of  each  and 
all.  His  arrest  is  a  breach  of  the  Constitution,  State  and  Federal,  which 
provides  for  the  security  of  the  people  "  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers, 
and  effects  ;"  which  forbids  that  any  one  should  be  held  to  answer  for  any 
crime  except  by  indictment ;  which  protects  life,  liberty,  and  property  by 
the  processes  of  law  ;  and  which  declares  for  free  speech  without  abridg 
ment.  This  view  is  conclusive,  but  the  state  of  civil  war  enlarges  the 
discussion. 

The  question  in  that  view  is :  Can  a  citizen,  cot  connected  with  the 
army  of  the  United  States,  remote  from  the  scene  of  its  operations,  and  in 
Ohio,  where  all  the  laws  of  the  land  are  yet  enforced  by  constitutional 
means,  be  subjected  to  military  arrest,  imprisonment,  and  trial  before 
a  military  commission  and  punishment  at  its  discretion,  either  for  offences 
unknown  to  the  law,  or,  if  known,  for  which  the  law  has  provided  a  mode 
of  trial  and  penalty  ?  In  other  words  :  In  this  time  of  great  peril,  has  the 
Federal  legislature,  after  two  years  of  war,  failed  to  provide  for  all  its 
emergencies?  and,  if  it  has  failed,  can  the  Executive  act  instantly,  and 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  law,  at  his  discretion?  In  pursuing  these  ques 
tions,  I  hold  : 

1.  That  Congress  has  provided  for  the  offence  alleged  against  Mr. 
Vallandigham.  In  the  specifications  he  is  charged  with  various  expres 
sions,  "  all  of  which  opinions  and  sentiments  he  well  knew  did  aid,  com- 


CIVIL   WAE.  329 

fort,  and  encourage  those  in  arms  against  the  Government,  and  could  but 
induce  in  his  hearers  a  distrust  of  their  own  Government,  sympathy  for 
those  in  arms  against  it,  and  a  disposition  to  resist  the  laws  of  the  land." 

In  the  laws  passed  by  the  last  Congress,  such  an  offence  is  made  pun 
ishable.  By  an  act  approved  July  17,  18G2,  to  u  suppress  insurrection," 
etc.  (U.  S.  Statutes,  p.  589),  known  as  the  confiscation  act,  it  is  pro 
vided  (sec.  2)  that  if  any  person  "  shall  give  aid  or  comfort  to  the  re 
bellion  or  insurrection  and  be  convicted  thereof,  such  person  shall  be  pun 
ished  "  by  fine  and  imprisonment  and  disqualification  for  office.  In  the 
14th  section,  the  Courts  of  the  United  States  are  given  "  full  power"  to 
institute  all  proceedings  under  the  law. 

This  would  be  sufficient  as  to  the  crime  as  alleged  and  the  tribunal  to 
try  it ;  but  Congress  did  not  stop  there.  By  an  act  approved  March  3, 
1863,  known  as  the  act  relating  to  the  habeas  corpus  (  U.  S.  Statutes,  p. 
755,  etc.),  from  which  I  now  read,  the  President  is  authorized  to  suspend 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  "  in  any  case  throughout  the  United  States,  or 
any  part  of  it."  Whenever  and  wherever  the  writ  is  suspended,  no  mil 
itary  or  other  officer  is  bound  to  answer  the  writ  by  the  production  of  the 
body ;  but  the  judge  shall,  on  notice  that  the  prisoner  is  held  under  the 
President's  order,  suspend  all  proceedings  under  the  habeas  corpus.  By 
the  same  law  the  Departments  of  State  and  of  War  are  to  furnish  to  the 
judges  of  the  districts  the  names  of  political  prisoners  who  were  arrested 
therein,  for  civil  trial.  If  the  accused  are  not  indicted,  the  judge  is  to 
order  a  discharge,  and  the  custodian  is  to  execute  the  order.  In  case  the 
Departments  fail  to  send  such  a  list  to  the  judges,  any  citizen  may  do  it 
and  obtain  the  discharge  of  the  prisoner. 

These  laws  are  in  force.  They  were  made  by  a  Republican  Congress. 
They  were  made  for  this  very  exigency.  This  civil  war  was  in  contem 
plation  when  they  were  passed.  It  was  intended  by  these  laws  to  prevent 
arbitrary  arrests  and  inquisitorial  tribunals  of  military  men.  It  was  in 
tended  by  them  to  guarantee  an  accusatorial  trial,  openly,  with  indict 
ment,  by  a  jury  selected  impartially,  and  who  should  return  an  absolute 
verdict.  It  will  be  remembered  that  two  days  after  the  Emancipation 
proclamation,  to  wit,  September  24,  1863,  the  President  issued  another 
proclamation  subjecting  all  persons  "  to  trial  by  courts-martial  and  mil 
itary  commissions  "  who  were  found  "  affording  aid  and  comfort  to  the 
rebels."  The  same  proclamation  suspended  the  habeas  corpus  for  all  such 
persons.  If,  then,  you  would  understand  the  law  of  March  3,  1863,  re 
member  it  was  intended  expressly  to  ignore  the  right  of  the  President  to 
issue  that  proclamation,  without  authority  from  Congress.  The  first  sec 
tion  substantially  disallows  the  right  of  the  President  to  suspend  the  writ, 
without  the  assent  of  Congress  thereto.  The  other  section  quoted  provides 
civil  trial  for  those  arrested.  Would  you  know  the  motive  which  prompted 
the  law  of  March?  Read  the  debates  of  the  last  session.  The  arbitrary 
arrests  of  the  last  summer  were  condemned  at  the  last  fall  elections.  In 
Vermont,  in  Massachusetts,  in  New  York,  in  New  Jersey,  in  Iowa,  in 
Ohio — everywhere,  far  and  aloof  from  military  precincts,  such  arrests 
were  made.  The  names  of  the  victims  are  familiar.  The  election  oper 
ated,  as  the  miracle  of  old  did,  to  open  the  prison  doors.  When,  on  the 
first  day  of  the  last  session,  I  offered  a  resolution  denouncing  these  arrests, 


330  EIGHT  TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

and  calling  on  the  President  to  stop  them,  it  was  voted  down  by  the  Re 
publicans  ;  yet  many  of  their  best  men  refused  to  sanction  such  proceed 
ings.  Cowan,  Browning,  Kellogg,  and  others,  felt  the  necessity  of  pro 
viding  for  the  relief  of  all  civilians  from  military  arrest  and  trial.  They 
digested  this  plan  of  turning  them  over  to  the  civil  authorities  for  indict 
ment,  trial,  and  punishment,  or  discharge.  Thus  was  secured,  by  the  last 
Republican  Congress,  that  penal  trial  upon  which  Montesquieu  thought 
"  that  chiefly  the  liberty  of  the  citizen  depended."  Thus  was  secured  that 
"  key-stone  of  a  nation's  public  law  " — a  fair  penal  trial,  without  which 
liberty  is  but  a  sounding  name. 

In  Ohio  there  had  been  no  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
It  was,  therefore,  the  duty  of  Judge  Leavitt  to  see  to  it  that  Mr.  Vallan- 
dingham  had  the  benefit  of  the  writ.  The  implication  of  the  law  I  have 
quoted,  required  the  Judge  to  issue  it.  I  say  nothing  of  the  constitutional 
right  of  every  one  imprisoned,  as  of  course,  to  have  the  writ.  "What  busi 
ness  was  it  of  his  whether  General  Burnsidc  would  or  would  not  execute 
it?  He  must  have  known  the  history  of  this  writ  of  freedom — of  this 
glorious  result  of  the  long  struggle  between  law  and  power.  He  must  have 
learned  that  ths  law  had  triumphed  in  the  struggle,  and  that  however  it 
might  be  in  France,  where  an  iron  rod  was  the  staff  of  justice,  in  America 
and  England,  at  common  law,  individual  liberty  and  public  justice  were 
not  empty  words  to  make  "  earth  sick  and  heaven  weary,"  but  practical 
realities,  made  so  by  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  the  majesty  of 
law. 

So  long  as  the  writ  had  not  been  suspended  in  Ohio,  nor  martial  law 
declared,  the  Judge  had  no  right  to  refuse  it,  even  to  the  meanest  criminal. 
Had  he  allowed  it,  how  do  we  know  but  that  Gen.  Burnside  would  have 
taken  counsel  of  the  Attorney-General,  Mr.  Bates,  who.  as  an  honest  offi 
cer,  would  have  advised  that  Gen.  Burnside  should  either  have  returned 
the  body,  or  have  complied  with  the  law  of  March  3,  1863,  and  have  at 
once  notified  the  Judge  that  he  could  not  return  the  body,  by  reason  of 
the  suspension  of  habeas  corpus  in  Ohio  ;  or,  perhaps,  the  Secretary  of 
War  might  have  handed  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Vallandigham  to  the  Judge 
for  "  due  process  of  law,"  by  indictment  and  trial  in  obedience  to  the  law 
of  March  3,  1863.  By  the  failure  or  neglect  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  com 
ply  with  his  part  of  the  law  of  March  3.  1863,  it  is  now  impossible  to 
comply  with  its  provisions,  since  Mr.  Vallandigham  is  removed,  by  the 
act  of  our  military,  outside  of  its  lines.  If  Mr.  Vallandigham's  name 
were  placed  upon  the  list  sent  to  Judge  Leavitt,  it  is  now  too  late  to  afford 
him  the  civil  trial  provided  by  the  Republican  Congress.  As  your  repre 
sentative  during  the  Congress  which  enacted  the  laws  referred  to,  I  de 
clare  to  you  that  the  avowed  object  of  that  legislation  was  to  save  the 
nation  from  any  more  of  the  disgraceful  scenes  of  the  last  summer,  when 
citizens  were  seized  without  warrant,  imprisoned  without  law,  and  dis 
missed  without  hearing. 

In  uttering  your  protest  against  this  infraction  of  law,  fellow  citizens, 
you  give  the  best  assurances  of  your  fidelity  to  the  Government.  If  the 
present  Administration  desire  to  provoke  no  hostility  to  the  laws ;  if  they 
would  cultivate  the  respect  of  the  opposition  ;  if  they  would  that  the  peo 
ple,  North  and  South,  should  look  to  them  as  the  honored  ministers  of 


CIVIL   WAE.  331 

justice,  let  them  heed  the  appeals  of  their  own  wiser  men  and  journals, 
and  stop  instantly  this  system  of  unexampled  terrorism,  which  is  slowly 
but  surely  producing  disintegration,  distrust,  and  anarchy  in  society. 

2.  But  if  Vallandigham's  case  is  not  included  in  those  provided  against 
by  the  laws  I  have  quoted,  then  it  is  no  offence  at  all,  unless  it  be  treason. 
We  know  that  treason  cannot  be  tried  except  in  pursuance  of  certain  fixed 
constitutional  rules,  and  that  these  rules  have  not  been  pursued  in  this 
case.  Where,  then,  does  the  chief  Executive  or  his  agents  get  this  power 
of  arrest  ?  It  is  said  by  its  advocates  to  be  an  implied  power,  belonging 
to  the  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army.  In  this  capacity,  it  is  said  that 
he  can,  in  subduing  the  enemy,  use  any  power  in  his  opinion  necessary  to 
that  end.  If  so,  then  he  has  no  limit  but  his  own  will.  Such  power  is 
purely  despotic.  True,  he  has  all  the  power,  and  no  other,  of  the  Gene 
ral-in-Chief  of  the  army,  but  it  is  confined  to  the  sphere  of  actual  opera 
tions,  and  all  such  power  is  derived  from  and  must  be  subordinate  to  the 
law  which  creates  it.  To  command  the  army  as  its  first  chief,  is  not  to 
have  supreme  control  over  all  citizens,  for  that  belongs  to  legislation,  and 
the  Executive  cannot  legislate.  He  cannot  erect  tribunals.  He  cannot 
create  offences.  He  cannot  arrest  arbitrarily  citizens  who  are  not  sol 
diers.  Is  martial  law  pleaded?  Why,  this  has  not  yet  been  declared  over 
the  whole  country.  Nor  does  it  apply  where  there  is  no  army  or  rebellion. 
It  was  not  applied  to  Ohio  at  all,  nor  to  Dayton  till  after  the  arrest. 
Judge  Curtis  thus  refers  to  this  extraordinary  power,  asserted  for  the  Com 
mander-in-Chief  : 

"  But  when  the  military  commander  controls  the  person  or  property  of  citizens,  who 
are  beyond  the  sphere  of  his  actual  operations  in  the  field,  when  he  makes  laws  to  gov 
ern  their  conduct,  he  becomes  a  legislator.  Those  laws  may  be  made  actually  operative  ; 
obedience  to  them  may  be  enforced  by  military  power ;  their  purposes  may  be  solely  to 
support  and  recruit  his  armies,  or  to  weaken  the  power  of  the  enemy  with  whom  he  is 
contending.  But  he  is  legislator  still ;  and  whether  his  edicts  are  clothed  in  the  form  of 
proclamations,  of  military  orders,  by  whatever  name  they  may  be  called,  they  are  laws. 
If  he  have  the  legislative  power  conferred  on  him  by  the  people,  it  is  well.  If  not,  he 
usurps  it. 

"  He  has  no  more  lawful  authority  to  hold  all  the  citizens  of  the  entire  country,  out 
side  of  the  sphere  of  his  actual  operations  in  the  field,  amenable  to  his  military  edicts, 
than  he  has  to  hold  all  the  property  of  the  country  subject  to  his  military  requisitions. 
He  is  not  the  military  cornmande*  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  of  its  soldiers."" 

If  what  Judge  Curtis  says  be  true,  the  power  which  has  thus  arrested 
one  of  our  citizens,  and  created  an  offence,  or  a  strange  tribunal  to  try  a 
real  or  alleged  offence,  is  usurpation.  If  Judge  Curtis  be  not  mistaken, 
and  if  the  Republican  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  are  not  also  mistaken 
in  a  similar  judgment ;  if  the  commentators  and  jurists  of  the  land  are 
not  in  error,  then  Governor  Seymour  has  not  overstated  the  case,  when 
he  says  such  conduct  "  will  not  only  lead  to  military  despotism,  it  estab 
lishes  military  despotism." 

In  Ohio  the  civil  machinery  of  the  State  has  not  stopped.  Every 
part  of  it  was  running  without  jar  under  the  Constitution.  The  Courts 
were  open,  the  process  of  the  State  unimpeded,  not  a  single  pulley,  lever, 
joint,  wheel,  or  cog  out  of  place — all  evolving  out  of  harmony,  order, 
peace,  and  security.  Discussion  was  free  ;  printing  unrestricted ;  meet 
ings  public ;  the  ballot-box  and  all  other  elements  of  freedom  were  un 
impaired  ;  when,  lo !  a  citizen  is  seized  in  his  own  house,  in  the  night 


332  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

time,  and  by  military  force  taken  before  a  military  tribunal,  and  by  a 
mode  of  seizure  and  duress  unknown  to  the  institutions  of  the  State,  to 
answer  for  an  offence,  for  the  trial  of  which  a  law  had  already  been 
passed,  and  a  different  tribunal  already  designated !  He  is  tried,  and 
justice  laughs  at  the  mockery.  He  is  sentenced  to  be  thrust  within  the 
borders  of  a  formidable  rebellion,  who.se  success  he  had  everywhere  dep 
recated.  What  can  come  of  it  ?  What  does  it  forebode  ?  What  does 
it  mean  ?  Horace  Greeley  told  the  truth  when  he  said  that  this  banish 
ment  was  the  worst  joke  which  Mr.  Lincoln  had  yet  perpetrated.  Pre 
cisely  what  Mr.  Greeley  means  I  cannot  say ;  but  if  Mr.  Vallandigham 
declares  boldly  in  the  South,  as  he  has  in  the  North,  against  the  inde 
pendence  of  their  section,  and  the  infernal  atrocity  of  their  war  against 
our  Government,  this  exile  will  be  a  comedy  of  errors.  If  Mr.  Vallan 
digham  should,  through  what  he  may  conceive  to  be  the  injustice  of  the 
North,  or  the  blandishments  of  the  South,  show  the  least  sympathy  with 
the  rebellion  and  its  objects,  I  shall  be  mistaken  in  his  character.  His 
Democratic  friends  will  be  the  first  to  anathematize  such  recreancy.  Time, 
to  which  he  has  appealed,  will  solve  the  wisdom  or  the  unwisdom,  the 
seriousness  or  jocoseness  of  this  peculiar  punishment. 

3.  What  crime  was  sought  to  be  thus  punished?  Mr.  Vallandigham's 
speech  at  Mount  Vernon  was  the  ostensible,  but  his  sentiments  as  to  the 
war,  expressed  for  two  years,  was  the  real  offence.  But  \vould  these 
come  Avithin  the  law  of  July  17,  1862  ?  If  so,  let  him  be  tried  legally  for 
his  peace  principles  under  that  law.  In  his  Mount  Vernon  speech  he 
did  not  indulge  in  any  urgent  appeals  for  peace.  He  confined  himself  to 
denouncing  the  Administration  for  the  infractions  of  the  Constitution.  Pie 
urged  compliance  with  law  and  obedience  to  legitimate  authority.  His 
speech  there  allayed  excitement,  and  estopped  all  tendency  to  violence. 
It  is  on  record,  that  on  some  most  material  questions,  my  votes  and 
speeches  were  not  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Vallandigham's.  I  differed  with 
him  then,  and  yet  differ,  as  you  know,  as  to  his  peace  policy ;  but  upon 
that  occasion,  I  said  very  little  that  would  not  be  obnoxious  to  the  same 
punishment,  if,  indeed,  his  speech  there  were  obnoxious.  Yet  my  speech 
was  reported  as  u  harmless  ; "  his  as  "  dangerous."  I  think  I  am  right  in 
assuming  that  Mr.  Vallandigham's  peace  policy  was  the  real  reason  of  his 
arrest.  This  again  enlarges  the  discussion.  Had  he  a  right  to  indulge 
in  unwise  and  unpatriotic  speeches?  Supposing  that  he  is  wrong  and 
others  right,  still  there  remains  an  important  question,  something  more 
momentous  than  the  arrest  of  one  man.  It  is  the  right  of  free  speech.  It 
is  the  right  always  exercised  in  time  of  war  by  some  one  in  favor  of 
peace  ;  a  right  indispensable  to  the  attainment  of  the  very  object  of  war, 
which  is  peace.  This  right  has  been  always  used  in  time  of  war,  as  well 
in  England  as  in  America.  To  vindicate  that  right  before  you  would  be 
superfluous.  As  well  reargue  the  principle-  of  gravitation,  the  eirci^ation 
of  the  blood,  or  the  existence  of  light.  The  time  was  when  John  Milton 
wrote  his  scholarly  defence  of  unlicensed  printing,  and  proved  the  thesis 
of  Euripides,  fixed  in  immortal  Greek  at  the  head  of  his  chapter,  that 

"  This  is  true  liberty,  when  freeborn  men, 
Having  to  advise  the  public,  may  speak  free." 


CIVIL   WAR.  333 

Time  was  when  his  Puritan  thunder  echoed  through  the  English  land,  and 
made  the  Parliaments  listen  to  his  plea  for  the  liberty  of  discourse  on 
all  subjects,  without  the  imprimatur  of  censor  or  the  supervision  of  the 
provost.  With  what  sterling  sense  he  pleaded  for  that  free  speech,  which 
allowed  the  wise  man  to  gather  the  gold  from  the  drossiest  volume,  and 
which  did  not  fear  to  add  any  more  folly  to  the  fool.  u  The  State,"  said 
he,  "  shall  be  my  governor,  but  not  my  critic  !  "  What  he  thought  then, 
at  the  dawn  of  English  popular  freedom,  the  courts  of  England  afterwards 
applied  to  both  religion  and  politics.  On  the  24th  of  July,  1797,  Thomas 
Williams  was  tried  before  Lord  Kenyon  for  printing  Tom  Painc's  attack 
on  Christianity.  The  great  Lord  Erskine  defended  him.  While  he  rep 
robated  the  object  of  the  Infidel  in  his  "Age  of  Reason,"  he  vindicated, 
with  an  angelic  eloquence  which  has  made  his  speech  the  verdict  of  mil 
lions,  the  most  unbounded  freedom  of  discussion,  even  to  the  challenging 
of  error  in  the  Constitution  itself,  and  especially  in  its  administration. 
Hear  his  noble  sentiments  : 

"  Although  every  community  must  establish,  supreme  authorities,  founded  upon  fixed 
principles,  and  must  give  high  powers  to  magistrates  to  administer  laws  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  Government  itself,  and  for  the  security  of  those  who  are  to  be  protected  by  it ; 
yet,  as  infallibility  and  perfection  belong  neither  to  human  establishments  nor  to  human 
individuals,  it  ought  to  be  the  policy  of  all  free  establishments,  as  it  is  most  peculiarly 
the  principle  of  our  own  Constitution,  to  permit  the  most  unbounded  freedom  of  discus 
sion,  even  by  detecting  errors  in  the  Constitution  or  administration  of  the  very  Govern- 
raent>jtself,  so  as  that  decorum  is  observed,  which  every  State  must  exact  from  its  sub 
jects,  and  which  imposes  no  restraint  upon  any  intellectual  composition,  fairly,  honestly, 
and  decently  addressed  to  the  consciences  and  understandings  of  men.  Upon  this  prin 
ciple  I  have  an  unquestionable  right — a  right  which  the  best  subjects  have  exercised — to 
examine  the  principles  and  structure  of  the  Constitution,  and  by  fair,  manly  reasoning, 
to  question  the  practice  of  its  administrators.  I  have  a  right  to  consider  and  to  point  out 
errors  in  the  one  or  in  the  other  ;  and  not  merely  to  reason  upon  their  existence,  but  to 
consider  the  means  of  their  reformation.  By  such  free,  well-intentioned,  modest,  and 
dignified  communication  of  sentiments  and  opinions,  all  nations  have  been  gradually  im 
proved,  and  milder  laws  and  purer  religions  have  been  established." 

Under  such  a  large-minded  philosophy,  we  could  tolerate  a  Wendell 
Phillips,  so  long  as  there  is  left  reason  to  combat  his  heresies  of  hate. 
But  if  we  are  only  to  have  freedom  of  speech  from  the  Phillipses  and 
other  ranters  against  our  system  of  government,  while  those  are  throttled 
who  to  preserve  that  system  would  correct  its  administration,  then  indeed 
is  Liberty  manacled  and  Reason  in  irons. 

These  old  discussions  I  had  thought  would  never  have  been  revived, 
except  to  honor  the  heroism  of  the  early  martyrs  who  like  Algernon  Sid 
ney  died  for  freedom  of  thought,  or  to  admire  their  graceful  style  of  ex 
pression  through  which  the  soul  of  heroism  shone.  We  had  already 
gemmed  upon  the  forehead  of  our  -time  the  resplendent  coronal  of  free 
thought  and  free  printing  and  free  speech.  They  were  the  crown  jewels 
of  popular  sovereignty.  They  have  not  been  shut  up  in  caskets,  like  the 
jewels  of  princes,  but  set  in  our  fundamental  law — not  for  a  life  only, 
but  for  a  nation's  life,  to  shine  with  their  "  silent  capabilities  of  light"  for 
an  immortality ! 

With  what  a  glorious  fervor  Daniel  Webster  vindicated  this  right ! 
His  sentiment  you  have  recognized  by  adopting  it  as  one  of  your  resolu 
tions  to-day.  His  comprehensive  mind  saw  in  free  debate  the  scholar's 


334:  EIGHT   YEABS   IN   CONGRESS. 

stimulus,  the  philosopher's  stone,  the  statesman's  policy,  the  citizen's  pro 
tection,  and  the  religionist's  faith  !  He  saw  in  it  the  rod  for  error,  the 
plummet  of  truth,  and  the  car  of  advancement.  Especially  did  he  find  in 
its  guarantee  a  nation's  capacity  and  repose,  a  people's  liberty  and  happi 
ness.  He  saw  that  reason  would  lose  her  great  office,  the  pen  its  pun 
gency  and  power,  and  eloquence  its  fervor  and  force,  if  freedom  of 
thought  and  speech  was  circumscribed. 

What  Webster  saw  and  expressed  with  the  glow  of  a  great  heart, 
Thomas  Jefferson  has  handed  down  in  his  inaugural  message,  wherein  he 
has  impearlcd  forever  the  principles  of  Democratic  liberty  :  a  jealous  care  of 
the  right  of  election  ;  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  the  military  authority  ; 
the  diffusion  of  information,  and  the  arraignmenf  of  all  abuses  at  the  bar 
of  public  reason ;  freedom  of  the  press  and  freedom  of  person,  under  the 
protection  of  the  habeas  corpus  and  trial  by  juries  impartially  selected.  \ 
These  principles  form  the  bright  constellation  which  has  gone  before  us 
and  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of  revolution  and  reformation.  The 
wisdom  of  our  sages,  the  blood  of  our  heroes,  have  been  devoted  to 
their  attainment.  They  should  be  the  creed  of  our  political  faith,  the 
text  of  civil  instruction,  the  touchstone  by  which  to  try  the  services  of 
those  we  trust ;  and  should  we  wander  from  them  in  moments  of  error 
and  alarm,  let  us  hasten  to  retrace  our  steps  and  to  regain  the  road  which 
leads  to  peace,  liberty,  and  safety. 

I  would  to  God  that  I  could  read  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  with  such  conyoaen- 
tary  as  history  furnishes,  these  principles  of  his  philosophic  and  Demo 
cratic  predecessor,  that  he  might  retrace  his  steps  with  regard  to  these 
extraordinary  arrests.  I  would  implore  him,  with  that  respect  due  to 
his  high  office,  and  forgetting  all  considerations  but  the  honor  and  safety 
of  the  people  of  Ohio  whose  representative  in  part  I  have  been  so  long,  to 
pause  before  he  precipitates  any  part  of  our  people  into  the  despair  which 
is  fast  gathering  upon  their  hearts.  I  would  beseech  him,  in  the  language 
of  his  proclamation  for  national  humiliation,  in  the  name  of  that  God  who 
overrules  the  designs  of  Presidents  and  the  orders  of  Generals,  not  to  add 
to  the  u  awful  calamity  of  civil  war,  which  now  desolates  the  land,"  other 
and  worse  "  punishments  for  our  presumptuous  sins."  I  would  beseech 
him  not  to  turn  away  from  the  earnest  question  which  Horatio  Seymour 
has  propounded  :  '•  Whether  this  war  is  waged  to  put  down  rebellion  at 
the  South  or  destroy  free  institutions  at  the  North ; "  but  to  answer  it 
magnanimously  by  retracing  his  steps,  releasing  and  stopping  at  once  and 
forever  this  system  of  arrest  and  inquisitorial  trial.  He  would  thus  as 
sure  you  whose  sons  and  brothers  are  in  the  field,  that  our  Government 
shall  not  be  subverted  in  the  North,  while  our  gallant  soldiers  are  main 
taining  it  with  their  lives  in  the  South'. 


CIVIL   WAE.  335 

MAGNA  CHARTA— ITS  SANCTITY. 
Extract  from  a  speech  delivered  in  Cooper  Institute,  in  November,  1863. 

THE  traveller  who  visits  that  island  meadow  in  the  river  Thames,  near 
Windsor,  now  used  as  a  race  course,  and  still  known  as  Rimnymcde,  does 
not  go  there  to  see  the  racing,  but  because  that  meadow  marks  an  era  in 
the  progress  of  human  freedom.  There,  six  hundred  and  forty-four  years 
ago,  on  the  morning  of  the  12th  of  August,  the  iron-clad  barons  met  King 
John,  and  wrested  from  him  the  same  rights  which  have  been  violated  by 
Abraham  Lincoln,  and  ostracized  by  the  indemnity  bill  of  the  last  Con 
gress.  [Cheers.]  These  rights  were  written  in  the  Latin  of  that  day, 
"  Nullus  liber  homo  capiatur."  Dead  language,  but  vital  with  liberty — 
which  Chatham  said  was  worth  all  the  classics. 

"  No  free  man  shall  be  arrested  or  imprisoned  or  deprived  of  his  own 
free  household,  or  of  his  liberties,  or  of  his  own  free  customs,  or  out 
lawed,  or  banished,  or  injured  in  any  manner,  nor  will  we  pass  sentence 
upon  him,  nor  send  trial  upon  him,  unless  by  the  legal  judgment  of  his  peers 
or  by  the  law  of  the  land."  [Cheers.] 

This  was  the  germ  of  our  civil  freedom,  which  the  pigmies  of  to-day 
are  endeavoring  to  uproot,  now  that  it  has  grown  from  the  acorn  to  the 
oak !  As  another  (Judge  Thomas  of  Massachusetts)  has  so  finely  ex 
pressed  it :  "  From  the  gray  of  that  morning  streamed  the  rays,  which, 
uplifting  with  the  hours,  coursing  with  the  years,  and  keeping  pace  with 
the  centuries,  have  encircled  the  whole  earth  with  the  glorious  light  of 
English  liberty — the  liberty  for  which  our  fathers  planted  these  common 
wealths  in  the  wilderness ;  for  which  they  went  through  the  baptism  of 
blood  and  fire  in  the  Revolution ;  which  they  imbedded  and  hoped  to 
make  immortal  in  the  Constitution  ;  without  which  the  Constitution  would 
not  be  worth  the  parchment  on  which  it  wks  written."  [Cheers.]  As  if 
to  make  this  great  charter  sacred  forever  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  memory, 
to  connect  it  with  the  holiest  emotions  of  religion,  and  to  sanction  it 
by  the  hopes  and  the  terrors  of  the  unseen  world,  the  Catholic  hie 
rarchy  of  that  day — long  before  Protestantism  arose,  before  the  Refor 
mation,  before  we  had  the  transcendental  light  of  our  Puritan  preach 
ers  [laughter] — this  Catholic  hierarchy,  then  the  friend  of  the  oppressed 
and  the  people,  were  convoked  a  few  days  after  the  unwilling  king 
signed  the  charter.  Picture  to  your  eye  that  great  convocation.  It 
met  in  Westminster  Abbey,  the  mausoleum  of  the  dead  royalty  and  genius 
of  Britain.  Here  was  the  king  upon  his  throne,  sceptred  and  crowned, 
impurpled  in  his  robes  of  office  ;  near  him  were  the  lords  temporal  in  their 
scarlet  gowns  ;  on  his  right  were  the  gentlemen  of  England  representing 
the  Commons,  the  people  of  the  realm ;  and  within  the  altar  were  the 
lords  spiritual,  clad  in  all  the  pomp  of  their  pontifical  apparel !  In  the 
midst  stood  Stephen  Langton,  the  primate  of  England,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury.  The  great  organ  rolls  its  music  amidst  the  Gothic  arches  ; 
the  air,  suffused  with  a  dim  religious  light  from  the  stained  windows, 
trembles  with  the  thrill  of  "  symphony  divine,"  and  the  choir  sing  Te  Deum 


336  EIGHT  YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

laudamus — praise  to  God  for  the  great  charter  of  human  freedom  !  Cen 
sers  swing  and  the  incense  rises,  an  offering  to  the  God  of  justice  !  And 
in  that  impressive  presence  the  Archbishop  arises,  and  gathering  upon  his 
brow  and  in  his  voice  the  terrors  of  the  invisible  and  eternal  world,  he  se 
questers  and  excludes,  and  from  the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  from 
the  company  of  the  saints  in  heaven  and  the  good  on  earth,  he  forever 
excommunicates  and  accurses  every  one  who  should  dare  violate  that 
great  charter  of  Anglo-Saxon  freedom  !  {[Cheers. ~\  Think  you,  men  of 
New  York,  these  curses  are  not  living  yet?  A  Massachusetts  Senator  has 
said  that  your  honored  Governor  is  now  being  dragged  at  the  chariot  of  a 
Federal  Executive,  usurping  the  rights  of  the  people  and  violating  the 
great  charter,  as  eternized  in  our  traditions,  our  history,  and  our  Consti 
tution.  But  the  people  of  this  country  are  meeting  as  of  old,  not  in  any 
Gothic  minster,  not  in  the  presence  of  the  great  hierarchs,  not  with  cere 
mony  of  Church  and  State,  not  to  the  music  of  organ  and  choir  or  the 
rising  incense  of  praise,  not  amidst  the  fulminations  of  primates ;  but 
under  the  great  sky  of  heaven,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi ;  and 
they,  too,  are  sequestering  and  excluding,  excommunicating  and  accurs- 
ing — and  from  the  body  of  the  just  God  in  heaven  and  from  the  company 
of  the  good  and  patriotic  everywhere — all  the  minions  of  power  who 
have  dared  in  this  age  and  land  to  violate  these  sacred  rights  of  personal 
and  constitutional  liberty.  [Great  cheers. J 


CONFISCATION. 

ITS  HISTORY — EXPERIENCE  OF  IRELAND — CAN  BELLIGERENCY  AND  TREASON  EXIST  TOGETHER  ? — 
PHILOLOGY  PROGRESSIVE — CONSTITUTIONAL  PROVISIONS — EFFECTS  OF  CONFISCATION. 

"It  is  advisable  to  exceed  in  lenity  rather  than  in  severity  ;  to  banish  but  few  rather  than 
many  ;  and  to  leave  them  their  estates,  instead  of  making  a  vast  number  of  confiscations. 
Under  pretence  of  avenging  the  republic's  cause,  the  avengers  would  establish  tyranny. 
The  business  is  not  to  destroy  the  rebel,  but  the  rebellion.  They  ought  to  return  as  quickly 
as  possible  into  the  usual  track  of  government,  in  wlibh  every  one  is  protected  by  the 
laws,  and  no  one  injured." — Montesquieu. 

THE  joint  resolution  explanatory  of  the  Confiscation  Act  being  before 
the  House,  on  January  14, 1864,  Mr.  Cox  said  :  — I  do  not  desire  to  detain 
the  House  at  any  length.  The  general  subject  of  confiscation,  its  legality 
and  policy,  was  exhaustively  discussed  in  the  last  Congress.  I  may  be 
allowed  to  add  a  few  considerations  to  those  which  have  heretofore  been 
offered  here  :  first,  as  to  the  general  policy  of  the  confiscation  system,  with 
a  view  to  putting  down  this  rebellion  ;  and  secondly,  as  to  the  specific 
mode  pointed  out  by  this  bill  and  its  proposed  amendments.  My  impres 
sion  is,  that  the  confiscation  system  has  been  an  utter  failure.  Because 
it  has  failed,  we  are  to  have  it  newly  tinkered  session  after  session,  and 
from  day  to  day,  with  a  view  to  encourage  rapacity,  and  aggravate  griev 
ances.  Such  legislation,  sir,  only  stimulates  rebellion.  It  destroys  what 
remnant  of  Union  feeling  may  be  still  remaining  in  the  South.  It  ignores 


CIVIL    WAR.  337 

the  first  lesson  of  history,  what  has  been  truly  called  "  the  principal  obser 
vation  of  the  best  historians,  that  a  whole  nation,  how  contemptible  soever, 
should  not  be  so  incensed  by  any  prince  or  State,  how  powerful  soever,  as 
to  be  driven  to  take  desperate  courses."  Instead  of  disarming  the  rebel, 
it  arms  him,  when  nearly  exhausted,  with  the  weapons  of  revenge  and 
despair.  Mr.  Burke  once  said,  speaking  of  America  :  "  You  cannot  frame 
an  indictment  against  a  whole  people."  History  is,  alas  !  too  full  of  ex 
amples  of  the  ruthless  savagery  of  confiscation.  In  proportion  to  the 
atrocities  have  been  the  resistance  of  the  people  and  the  desolation  of  the 
lands  to  which  such  savagery  has  been  applied.  If  I  should  wish  to  pre 
sent  a  case  where  all  tl^  horrors  of  subjugation,  penury,  devastation,  and 
confiscation  have  been  felt,  I  would  go  to  Ireland.  Crushed  by  the  cruelty 
of  a  system  similar  to  that  now  and  here  sought  to  be  inaugurated,  Ire 
land  points  with  skeleton  finger  continually  in  all  her  sad  history  a 
wrarning  to  our  rulers.  I  do  not  think  these  cruelties  of  England  toward 
Ireland  are  attributable  solely  to  the  Puritan  spirit  of  the  time  of  Crom 
well,  although  I  find  in  her  history  an  appeal  from  New  England,  in  the 
person  of  one  of  her  pastors,  to  Old  England,  to  make  the  "  English  sword 
drunk  with  Irish  blood,  to  make  them  heaps  upon  heaps,  their  country  a 
dwelling-place  for  dragons,  an  astonishment  to  nations."  These  excesses 
were  not  the  result  of  religious  bigotry  alone.  They  date  from  the  ear 
liest  connection  of  Ireland  with  England.  All  her  rebellions  were  the 
reaction  of  suffering  against  rapine.  With  permission,  I  extract  from 
Smythe's  Ireland,  Historical  and  Statistical,  volume  eleven,  page  117,  the 
terrible  lesson  I  have  pondered  on  the  general  subject  of  confiscation. 
After  the  expulsion  of  James  II.  from  the  throne  of  England,  the  slender  rel 
ics  of  Irish  possessions  became  the  subject  of  fresh  confiscations.  From  a 
report  made  in  1698,  it  appears  that  nearly  4,000  Irish  subjects  were  out 
lawed,  and  their  possessions,  amounting  to  1,060,792  acres,  were  confis 
cated.  The  area  of  Ireland  is  estimated  at  11,042,682  acres.  The  his 
torian  says,  that  the  forfeitures  in  the  reigns  of  Mary  and  Elizabeth  were 
2,838,972  acres  ;  in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  at  the  Restoration,  and  in  1688, 
the  forfeitures  were  11,697,629  acres  ;  so  that  the  whole  island  has  been 
confiscated,  and  some  parts  twice.  In  one  century  no  inconsiderable  por 
tion  of  the  island  was  confiscated  twice,  or  perhaps  thrice  ;  so  that  at  the 
Union,  the  situation  of  Ireland  was  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the  world. 
Such  universal  ruin  only  served  then,  as  it  will  serve  in  this  devoted  land, 
to  inspire  hatred  and  scorn  between  the  conquered  people  and  the  victors 
who  trampled  upon  them.  Retaliation  and  murder  ever  follow  closely 
upon  the  heels  of  confiscation.  There  is  not  a  wise  writer  who  has  pic 
tured  this  history  but  has  condemned  the  impolicy,  not  to  say  illegality,  of 
the  forfeitures.  They  operated  always  against  the  conclusion  of  the  war. 
Had  the  Irish  been  regarded  as  alien  enemies  instead  of  domestic  rebels, 
they  would  have /had  one  relief — they  would  have  retained  their  posses 
sions  under  the  established  law  of  civilized  nations. 

If  I  were  to  assume  the  premises  sometimes  assumed  by  gentlemen 
upon  the  other  side  of  the  House,  that  this  war  is  a  territorial  war,  and 
that  every  man.  woman,  and  child,  loyal  or  disloyal,  within  the  limits  of 
the  belligerent  territory  are  alien  enemies,  and  should  suffer  all  the  conse 
quences  of  belligerency,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  then  there  would 
22 


338  EIGHT   TEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 

be  no  foundation  at  all  for  acts  of  this  kind.*  If  the  rebel  becomes  an 
alien  enemy,  you  cannot  confiscate  the  private  property  as  these  bills  pro 
pose.  If  there  be  a  line  of  force,  protected  by  bayonets,  which,  accord 
ing  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Hiawatha  case,  makes  the  confederacy  a 
de  facto  government ;  if  this  be  true,  as  argued  by  the  Solicitor  of  the  War 
Department,  and  as  has  been  argued  by  a  gentleman  in  the  other  end  of 
the  Capitol,  then  there  can  be  no  confiscation  of  rebel  property  at  all  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  the  confiscation  act.  But  I  do  not  propose  to 
inquire  too  curiously  into  this  matter,  though  it  may  well  engage  the  atten 
tion  of  jurists  to  inquire  how  treason  can  be  alleged  or  confiscation  follow 
where  the  accused  were  under  the  dominion  of  a  po^ver  capable  of  coercing 
allegiance  to  it  and  holding  the  sword  of  the  magistrate  de  facto,  though 
not  de  jure.  Protection  and  allegiance  are  correlative.  While  govern 
ment  gives  the  one,  it  may  command  the  other.  If  it  fail  to  give  protec 
tion,  would  it  be  just  or  rational  to  punish  for  treason?  This  subject  is 
treated  in  the  books,  and,  indeed,  was  the  subject  of  English  statutes.  It 
is  thus  stated  by  a  writer  in  the  New  American  Cyclopaedia,  under  the 
title  Treason  : 

"  But,  from  the  obvious  absurdity  of  exacting  from  every  individual  a  sound,  or  rather 
a  fortunate,  judgment  as  to  the  obscure  and  complicated  grounds  on  which  the  claim  to 
sovereignty  often  rested,  it  became  and  still  remain?  a  well-settled  rule,  that  no  one  incurs 
the  guilt  o'f  treason  by  adherence  to  a  king  or  government  de  facto,  although  that  king 
or  government  has  but  the  right  of  a  successful  rebel,  and  loses  it  all  by  a  subsequent 
defeat." 

*  A  succinct  statement  of  this  heresy  is  to  be  found  in  a  letter  of  William  Whiting, 
Esq.,  the  Solicitor  of  the  War  Department,  addressed  to  the  "  Union  League  of  Philadel 
phia,"  in  exposition  of  the  political  situation  created  by  the  progress  of  the  war.  In  this 
publication  Mr.  Whiting  contends  that  the  war  between  the  Government  and  the  insur 
gents  has  at  present  reached  such  a  stage  that,  alike  in  law  and  in  fact,  it  has  become  a 
"  territorial  civil  war,"  that  is,  as  he  adds,  "  a  war  by  all  persons  situated  in  the  belliger 
ent  teiritory  against  the  United  States."  He  says  : 

"  Whenever  two  nations  are  at  war,  every  subject  of  one  belligerent  nation  is  a  public 
onemy  of  the  other.  An  individual  may  be  a  personal  friend  and  at  the  same  time  a  pub 
lic  enemy  to  the  United  States.  The  law  of  war  defines  international  relations.  When 
the  civil  war  in  America  became  a  territorial  war,  every  citizen  residing  in  the  belligerent 
districts  became  a  public  enemy,  irrespective  of  his  private  sentiments,  whether  loyal  or 
disloyal,  friendly  or  hostile,  Unionist  or  Secessionist,  guilty  or  innocent." 

According  to  this  logic,  therefore,  every  citizen  and  subject  of  the  Southern  Govern 
ment,  whether  loyal  or  disloyal,  friendly  or  hostile,  Unionist  or  Secessionist,  guilty  or  in 
nocent,  black  or  white,  bond  or  free,  is  to  be  held  and  treated  as  a  public  enemy  of  the 
United  States. 

The  rights  of  persons  inhabiting  the  seceded  States  are  thus  comprehensively  defined  : 

"Each person  inhabiting  those  sections  of  the  country  declared  by  the  President's 
proclamation  to  be  in  rebellion  has  the  right  to  what  belongs  to  a  public  enemy,  and  no 
more.  He  can  have  no  right  to  take  any  part  in  our  Government.  That  right  does  not 
belong  to  an  enemy  of  the  country  while  he  is  waging  war  or  after  he  has  been  subdued. 
A  public  enemy  has  a  right  to  participate  in  or  to  assume  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  only  when  he  has  conquered  the  United  States.  We  find  in  this  well-settled  doc 
trine  of  belligerent  law  the  solution  of  all  questions  in  relation  to  State  rights.  After 
the  inhabitants  of  a  district  have  become  public  enemies,  they  have  no  rights,  either  State 
or  personal,  against  the  United  States.  They  are  belligerents  only,  and  have  left  to  them 
only  belligerent  rights." 

If  this  be  true — which,  however,  I  deny — then  those  who  urge  it  at  least  are  estopped 
from  urging  trials  for  treason,  and  confiscations  as  the  penalty.  There  can  be  no  treason 
in  case  of  a  belligerent  who  is  in  the  position  of  a  public  enemy. 


CIVIL   WAE.  339 

It  seems  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  dominant  party  in  this  House 
that  this  confiscation  system  shall,  if  possible,  be  carried  out  in  the  South. 
They  cannot  do  it  and  make  it  effective  under  the  Constitution.  They 
must  do  it  over  that  instrument  and  in  spite  of  its  limitations.  All  the 
forfeiture  which  they  can  obtain  under  the  Constitution  is  simply  the  life 
estate  of  those  who  are  convicted  of  treason ;  and  as  that  life  estate  is  no 
longer  than  the  halter  with  which  the  man  is  hung,  the  results  would  not 
be  worth  the  pains.  Avarice  wrould  not  be  sated  by  a  life  estate.  Its 
maw  must  be  gorged.  It  must  have  all.  Hence,  from  some  motive  or 
other  not  creditable  to  our  human  nature,  whether  it  be  from  unchristian 
malice  or  corrupt  greed,  or  some  other  diabolic  desire,  there  seems  to  be 
an  urgency  upon  gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  of  the  House  to  break  the 
Constitution  to  get  at  the  absolute  title  to  the  estates  of  the  rebels. 

I  know  it  may  be  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  that  the  bill  which 
he  has  presented  does  not  involve  the  constitutional  question.  He  tells  us 
that  he  simply  desires  to  submit  the  question  to  the  Courts,  and  let  them 
determine  whether  or  not  the  forfeiture  shall  be  in  fee  or  for  life.  But, 
sir,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  STEVENS]  and  others  have  in 
dicated  a  desire  to  move  amendments  here,  repealing  the  joint  resolution 
of  the  last  Congress,  which,  on  the  suggestion  of  the  President,  embodied 
the  language  of  the  Constitution.  The  effect  of  such  repeal  will  be  to 
leave  the  original  law  in  full  force.  Its  execution  will  then  be  attempted 
without  regard  to  the  Constitution,  and  the  officers  of  the  Government 
will  at  once  seize  upon  and  sell  the  property  in  fee.  The  vendee  will  hold 
it  absolutely,  and  the  burden  of  contesting  its  validity  will  be  thrown  upon 
children  and  heirs  whose  rights  the  Constitution  intended  should  be  guard 
ed.  Therefore,  the  question  comes  up  properly  on  this  bill,  whether  we 
shall  allow  any  such  unconstitutional  measure  to  pass  ;  for  even  by  the 
bill  of  the  gentleman  from  Iowa,  without  any  of  the  amendments  pro 
posed,  we  would  be  holding  out  to  the  judges  and  to  the  instruments  of 
this  administration,  a  lure  to  lead  them  on  to  follow  up  this  confiscation 
system  for  some  bad  purpose  or  other.  I  honor  the  judiciary,  sir,  as 
much  as  any  member ;  but,  in  these  days  of  loose  construction  and  irre 
sponsible  tyranny,  I  am  growing  distrustful  of  all  powers,  wherever  de 
posited.  Now,  we  know  that  the  judge  of  the  United  States  Court  for 
the  eastern  district  of  Virginia,  a  Judge  Underwood,  has  lately  been  pass 
ing  upon  this  question.  I  do  not  know  any  thing  about  his  character, 
judicial  or  otherwise,  but  he  has  decided,  as  I  understand,  in  conformity 
with  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  OIITII].  Indeed, 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  is  drawn  from  this  precious  reservoir  of 
learning.  After  quoting  the  constitutional  clause,  that 

u  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason  ;  but  no  attainder 
of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  except  during  the  life  of  tiie  person 
attainted  ;  " 

he  has  held  that — 

"  If  we  use  the  word  '  except '  in  the  above  sense  in  the  constitutional  provision,  or 
make  it  read,  '  unless  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted,'  we  shall  at  once  come  to 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  provision,  to  wit,  that  the  forfeiture  was  to  be  per 
fected  during,  and  not  after,  the  lifetime  of  the  party  attainted." 


34:0  EIGHT    YEARS    EST    CONGRESS. 

Wonderful  jurist !  Profound  logician  !  Sage  philologist !  He  actu 
ally  holds  that  the  -word  "  except"  in  the  Constitution  means  something 
else  than  its  own  common  and  technical  meaning  ;  that  it  means  "  unless." 
By  all  the  processes  of  his  court,  as  I  am  informed,  he  is  striving  to  give 
effect  to  his  absurd  decision,  by  conveying  the  absolute  title  to  those  es 
tates  which  have  been  confiscated  before  him.  Well,  sir,  if  this  judge, 
under  the  confiscation  law  and  the  joint  resolution  interpreting  it,  had  a 
right  to  do  any  thing  of  that  kind,  what  is  the  need  of  this  legislation? 
Why  is  this  additional  legislation  proposed?  The  very  fact  that  the  gen 
tleman  from  Iowa  has  brought  in  this  bill  is  evidence  to  my  mind  that 
this  judge  is  a  corrupt  man,  and  deserves  impeachment  for  breaking  down 
the  existing  law,  which  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  is  now  trying  to  amend 
so  as  to  make  such  proceedings  valid  hereafter.  The  introduction  of  this 
bill  is  a  stigma  upon  his  name,  which  will  grow  blacker  with  time.  I 
would  need  no  other  evidence  of  the  corruption,  the  bad  heart,  and  the 
perverse  judgment  of  that  judge,  than  the  simple  argument  which  can  be 
drawn  from  the  words  of  the  Constitution  against  his  mode  of  confiscating 
property. 

The  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  ORTH],  whose  speech  I  had  the 
pleasure  of  reading  a  few  minutes  since,  for  I  could  not  altogether  hear  it 
while  he  was  delivering  it,  concluded  his  argument  with  an  invocation  to 
the  House  to  be  virtuous,  to  stand  firm  to  their  duty  in  this  time  when 
the  nation  is  reeling  and  staggering  under  the  sturdy  blows  of  organized 
treason.  He  appeals  to  us  in  this  time  to  gather  around  tUe  Administra 
tion  and  to  put  down  traitors  and  punish  the  guilty.  Very  well.  I  am 
with  the  gentleman  in  all  that,  but  I  should  have  liked  his  appeal  better 
had  he  called  on  us  to  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  all-sufficient  for  these 
purposes.  In  almost  the  same  breath  the  gentleman  says  he  would  op 
pose  the  enactment  of  laws  which  inflict  cruel,  harsh,  or  unjust  punish 
ment  upon  offenders.  Indeed !  The  question  here  is  not  how,  by  penal 
statutes,  to  reach  the  guilty.  The  guilty  are  already  reached  by  the  pres 
ent  law.  This  bill  reaches  beyond  the  guilty  traitor,  and  involves,  by  a 
posthumous  punishment,  the  innocent  and  good — ay,  even  the  unborn 
children.  It  inflicts  on  the  children  of  the  guilty  the  punishment  due  to 
the  parents  ;  and  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  who  seems  from  his  speech 
and  countenance  to  be  benevolent,  shows  that  in  fact  he  partakes  of  the 
ferocious  humanity  of  the  hour,  by  arguing  in  favor  of  a  bill  to  punish 
the  inoffensive  offspring  of  the  traitor.  How  kind  his  logic  is  may  be 
seen  from  this  extract : 

"  You  cannot  take  from  one  that  which  he  hath  not.  You  cannot  rob  one  who  is  not 
possessed  of  any  thing.  I  propose  to  take  from  the  traitor  his  property  before  his  death, 
and  before  it  can  descend  to  and  vest  in  his  heirs.  The  child  has  no  natural  right  to  the 
property  of  the  father.  Even  in  society  the  child  cannot  demand",  as  a  social  right,  the 
possession  of  his  father's  estate.  The  father,  during  his  lifetime,  can  alienate  his  prop 
erty  by  deed  of  conveyance  or  by  will  to  take  effect  at  his  death  ;  and  he  can  by  either 
process  totally  disinherit  his  children,  and  grant  his  estate  to  strangers.  It  is  only  in  a 
certain  contingency  that  the  child  obtains  possession  of  the  father's  property,  as  where  he 
dies  intestate,  and  this  right  of  inheritance  is  purely  a  social  right,  depending  upon  ex 
press  legislation  or  immemorial  usage  ripened  into  the  validity  and  sanctity  of  express 
law." 

The  child  has  no  natural  right  to  the  property  of  the  father  !     What 


CIVIL    WAR.  34:1 

an  unnatural  proposition  !  It  is  only  "  express  legislation  or  immemorial 
nsage "  that  gives  to  the  child,  in  the  absence  of  an  unnatural  will,  the 
estate  of  the  father  !  Truly,  sir,  we  have  fallen  on  evil  times,  when  to 
bolster  up  a  bill  of  penalty  like  this,  upon  the  children  of  the  guilty,  the 
beautiful  and  sacred  relations  of  the  family  are  to  be  disrupted.  I  am 
shocked,  that  in  this  age.  and  in  this  country,  and  in  this  House — and 
after  England,  following  our  example,  has  reformed  her  old  and  bar 
barous  law,  forfeiting  estates  in  fee — I  am  required  to  stand  up  before  the 
American  people,  and,  as  a  matter  of  pure  philanthropy  and  common  de 
cency,  protest  against  the  cruel  and  remorseless  character  of  bills  of  this* 
kind,  and  to  defend  the  rights  of  those  who  have  committed  no  crime,  but 
upon  whom  it  is  proposed  to  visit,  after  the  death  of  the  parent,  the 
crimes  of  the  ancestor.  I  protest  against  such  bills  as  contrary  to  the 
gentle  and  loving  spirit  of  the  SAVIOUR,  who,  while  upon  his  transcendent 
mission  to  this  attainted  and  corrupted  world,  shielded,  in  his  arms,  the 
little  ones  of  Jttdea.  His  words  have  a  tender  and  sweet  significance 
which  it  would  not  be  unbecoming  us  as  Christian  legislators  to  heed : 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  the  least  of  these,  ye  have  done  it 
unto  ME."  \Vould  that  these  words  were  graven  upon  our  memories  and 
hearts  when  we  come  to  vote  upon  this  harsh  and  vengeful  measure 
against  the  little  children  of  the  South  !  Such  words  interpret  the  Con 
stitution  by  a  liberal  canon  of  kindness — more  potent  than  ever  Grotius, 
Vattel,  or  Story  conceived  or  expressed,  or  than  ever  modern  philanthropy 
practised ! 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman  from  Indiana,  in  his  elaborate  and  learned 
speech,  drew  from  the  old  feudal  system,  from  the  black-letter  laws,  from 
the  whole  history  of  our  common  law  with  reference  to  forfeiture,  to  show 
that  there  should  be  another  and  a  different  interpretation  given  to  the 
Constitution  from  that  which  was  given  by  the  men  who  made  the  Con 
stitution,  by  the  men  who  passed  the  law  of  1790  to  carry  out  that  clause 
of  the  Constitution  to  which  I  have  referred,  and  by  all  the  interpreters 
of  the  Constitution  to  whom  he  himself  has  referred.  He  says  that  the 
science  of  philology  is  progressive,  and  that  a  word  which  meant  one 
thing  at  one  time,  and  in  one  age.  may  mean  another  thing  at  another 
time,  and  in  a  different  age  ;  and  upon  that  principle  he  says  that  the  word 
"except"  in  the  Constitution  means  "unless,"  and  then  he  draws,  like 
the  Virginia  judge,  the  conclusion  that  the  only  meaning  of  the  Constitu 
tion  is  that  the  proceedings  shall  be  commenced  in  the  life  of  the  person 
attainted.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  phraseology  of  our  Constitu 
tion  was  most  carefully  guarded.  It  was  as  pure  and  simple  as  the  spirit 
of  the  Constitution  was  kind  and  liberal.  The  word  "  except"  in  1787, 
had  as  plain  a  meaning  then  as  it  has  now.  The  word  "  unless  "  was  not 
its  synonyme  then,  nor  is  it  now,  except  in  very  rare  and  remote  instances. 
But  even  if  it  were  synonymous  now,  we  are  to  find,  not  its  meaning  now 
but  its  meaning  then  :  the  philology  of  1787  is  to  govern,  and  not  its  ad 
vanced  meaning  now.  But,  suppose  the  gentleman  should,  by  some 
technical  logomachy,  find  out  that  the  word  "except"  meant  sometimes 
"  unless  ;"  he  does  not  find  the  word  "  unless"  in  the  Constitution,  and  if 
he  had,  it  would  make  no  difference  in  the  argument.  The  word  "  ex 
cept,"  according  to  my  philology,  which  has  not  progressed  very  rapidly, 


342  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

is  derived  from  the  Latin  words  ex  and  capio,  to  take  from,  to  exclude 
from,  to  leave  out.  This  is  the  primary,  and  not  the  secondary  meaning 
into  which  the  gentleman  would  distort  it.  This  is  the  meaning  always 
attributed  to  it  by  all  the  public  writers  who  have  commented  on  this  part 
of  the  Constitution.  This,  too,  is  the  ordinary  and  simple  meaning  of  the 
Constitution.  It  reads  in  this  way,  and  cannot  be  made  to  read  in  any 
other :  "  But  no  attainder  of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or 
forfeiture  EXCEPT  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted."  There  are  some 
clauses  which  interpret  themselves.  Discussion  only  obscures,  and  does 
*not  elucidate  their  meaning.  This  clause  is  one  of  them. 

Now,  suppose  the  gentleman  inserts  his  favorite  word  "  unless  ; "  how 
does  that  help  him?  It  is  still  a  limitation  on  the  power  which  works 
corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture,  and  that  limit  is  during  the  life  of  the 
person  attainted^  of  treason.  That  word  "  unless  "  does  not  change  the 
meaning  of  it  at  all.  You  may  use  it  with  all  emphasis,  and  still  the 
limitation  would  be  on  forfeiture  during  life.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  there 
can  be  no  such  construction  given  to  it.  The  word  "  except,"  according 
to  Worcester,  Webster,  and  all  other  dictionaries,  in  its  first  and  best 
meaning,  simply  means  "  to  exclude  from  ;  "  so  that  when  the  Constitu 
tion  said  that  the  attainder  of  treason  should  not  work  forfeiture  of  prop 
erty  except  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted,  it  meant  that  the  for 
feiture  should  exclude  the  fee.  It  was  taken  out  of  and  from  the  effect 
of  the  forfeiture.  The  forfeiture  never  went  beyond  the  life.  And  there 
are  good  reasons  for  such  a  construction  which  the  gentleman  from  Indiana 
seemed  to  overlook.  He  might  have  found  them  laid  down  by  Judge 
Story.  He  might  have  found  them  in  the  United  States  Court  decisions. 
He  might  have  found  them  in  the  history  of  the  English  Parliament.  He 
might  have  found  them  in  the  history  of  English  and  Irish  confiscations. 
It  was  intended  by  our  Constitution  to  prevent  forever  this  crime  of  Gov 
ernment  taking  from  those  not  in  legal  existence,  from  minors,  from  the 
weak  and  helpless,  from  those  not  guilty,  from  those  incapable  of  crime, 
that  property  which  always  in  cases  of  intestacy,  and  generally  in  cases 
of  will,  the  law  gives  to  the  children,  and  which,  by  natural  right,  and 
according  to  every  code  of  inheritance  known  among  men,  always  goes  to 
the  children  in  the  absence  of  a  will.  The  only  authority  whi$h  can  be 
offered  by  the  gentleman  for  his  construction  is  this  Virginia  judge.  The 
gentleman  has  brought  no  authority  here  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  his 
view — none  whatever.  He  has  evidently  been  diligent,  and  has  examined 
all  the  authorities,  and  found  them  against  him.  Can  the  gentleman 
name  one  authority  which  sustains  his  views  of  the  case  except  this  trashy 
decision  of  Judge  Underwood?  Not  one.  He  relies  solely  on  his  pro 
gressive  philology.  So  it  is  progressive.  This  war  is  teaching  us  many 
new  meanings  to  old  words  and  terms.  A  patriot  used  to  mean  one  who 
loved  his  whole  country ;  who  was  devoted,  by  a  principle  of  sympathy 
and  union,  to  every  part ;  who  had  a  common  feeling  and  a  common  in 
terest  with  those  who  lived  under  the  same  Government,  who  are  contained 
within  the  same  natural  or  historical  boundaries ;  who  cherished  the  tie 
that  holds  the  country  together,  and  who  held  that  evil  to  any  part  of 
their  fellow-countrymen  was  evil  to  themselves.  Now  it  means  other 
wise.  Philology  is  progressive.  Now  a  patriot  is  one  who  can  break  tho 


CIVIL   WAR.  343 

supreme  law,  who  can  liate  half  his  nation,  who  can  rejoice  in  the  bayonet 
at  the  election,  and  the  greenback  in  corruption  ;  who  is  anxious  to  see  a 
war  of  extermination,  and  who,  as  the  climax  of  his  devotion,  is  willing 
to  see  the  last  one  of  his  wife's  blood-relations  offered  upon  the  altar,  and 
the  innocent  offspring  of  the  South  turned  homeless  and  penniless  upon 
the  cold  and  unfeeling  world  for  crimes  in  which  they  could  not  be  par 
ticipants  !  Philology  is  progressive.  A  traitor  now  is  a  man  who  loves 
the  old  order,  who  dislikes  to  see  the  old  Constitution  dismantled,  who  is 
willing  to  make  any  sacrifice  that  will  restore  the  Union,  and  whose  very 
love  of  those  who  used  to  be  under  the  same  old  family  roof-tree  amounts 
to  such  a  sympathy  that  he  would  love  to  have  them  all  restored.  A 
philanthropist  used  to  mean  a  friend  of  man.  Now  it  means  a  friend  of 
the  black  ;  or,  rather,  such  friendship  as  drags  the  negro  from  home,  hap 
piness,  and  content,  to  pauperism,  crime,  and  starvation  !  Philology  is 
progressive.  But  Judge  Story  did  not  progress  like  the  gentleman  from 
Indiana  in  his  philology.  He  kept  the  old  meaning  of  the  fathers,  which 
was  for  all  time.  My  friend  from  Indiana  said  that  he  could  find  but 
little  written  by  our  commentators  upon  this  mooted  clause  of  the  Consti 
tution.  When  he  turned  to  Judge  Curtis  he  found  but  one  single  sen 
tence  :  "  The  punishment  is  not  prescribed  by  the  Constitution.  It  is  left 
to  be  prescribed  by  Congress  ;  with  the  limitation,  however,  that  no  con 
viction  for  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  of  property 
except  during  the  life  of  the  offender." 

The  matter  was  so  plain  to  Judge  Curtis  that  he  could  make  but  little 
commentary  upon  it.  So  it  was  with  Judge  Story.  After  quoting  the 
clause  in  question,  he  says  : 

"  Two  motives  probably  concurred  in  introducing  it  as  an  express  power.  One  was, 
not  to  leave  it  open  to  implication  whether  it  was  to  be  exclusively  punishable  with  death, 
according  to  the  known  rule  of  the  common  law,  and  with  the  barbarous  accompaniments 
pointed  out  by  it,  but  to  confide  the  punishment  to  the  discretion  of  Congress.  The 
other  was,  to  impose  some  LIMITATION  upon  the  NATURE  AND  EXTENT  of  the  punishment, 
so  that  it  should  not  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  BEYOND  the  life  of  the  offender. 
****** 

"  It  surely  is  enough  for  society  to  take  the  life  of  the  offender,  as  a  just  punishment 
of  his  crime,  without  taking  from  his  offspring  and  relatives  that  property  which  may  be 
the  only  means  of  saving  them  from  poverty  and  ruin.  It  is  bad  policy,  too  ;  for  it  cuts 
off  all  the  attachments  which  these  unfortunate  victims  might  otherwise  feel  for  their  own 
Government,  and  prepares  them  to  engage  in  any  other  service  by  which  their  supposed 
injuries  may  be  redressed  or  their  hereditary  hatred  gratified.  Upon  these  and  similar 
grounds  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  clause  was  first  introduced  into  the  original  draft  of 
the  Constitution ;  and,  after  some  amendments,  it  was  adopted  without  any  apparent  re 
sistance.  By  the  laws  since  passed  by  Congress  it  is  declared  that  no  conviction  or  judg 
ment  for  any  capital  or  other  offences  shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  any  forfeiture  of 
estate.  The  history  of  other  countries  abundantly  proves  that  one  of  the  strong  incen 
tives  to  prosecute  offences  as  treason  has  been  the  chance  of  sharing  in  the  plunder  of  the 
victims.  Rapacity  has  been  thus  stimulated  to  exert  itself  in  the  service  of  the  most  cor 
rupt  tyranny ;  and  tyranny  has  been  thus  furnished  with  new  opportunities  of  indulging 
its  malignity  and  revenge ;  of  gratifying  its  envy  of  the  rich  and  good ;  and  of  increas 
ing  its  means  to  reward  favorites  and  secure  retainers  for  the  worst  deeds." — 3  Story's 
Commentaries,  p.  170. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  could  find  no  reason  for  the 
construction  which  Judge  Story  gives,  but  that  eminent  jurist  does  find  a 
good  and  satisfactory  reason  for  the  limitation  of  the  punishment,  and  he 


344  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

gives  it  in  the  extract  which  has  just  been  read.  Can  there  be  a  greater 
reason  against  extending  a  penal  law  than  the  fact  that  such  extension 
will  work  harm  to  the  innocent,  and  encourage  tyranny,  rapacity,  cruelty, 
and  murder  ?  To  say  nothing  of  the  impolicy  of  breaking  down  allegiance 
to  the  Government  by  such  a  system  of  injustice,  the  reasons  I  have 
quoted  are  sufficient  to  answer  all  that  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  has 
said  in  favor  of  his  construction. 

Mr.  ORTH.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  single  ques 
tion  :  whether  he  takes  the  position  that  this  bill  now  before  us,  or  any 
pending  amendments  to  it,  will  work  corruption  of  blood  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     This  bill,  with  the  pending  amendments  ? 

Mr.  ORTH.     Yes,  sir.     Will  it  work  corruption  of  blood? 

Mr.  Cox.  It  cannot  work  corruption  of  blood  under  our  Constitution. 
There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  corruption  of  blood. 

Mr.  ORTH.  I  ask  the  gentleman  furthermore  whether  the  authority 
read  from  Judge  Story  does  not  apply,  and  do  not  his  remarks  apply,  to 
the  fact  of  corruption  of  blood? 

Mr.  Cox.     It  applies  to  this  very  clause  of  the  Constitution  : 

"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason,  but  no  attainder 
of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  except  during  the  life  of  the  per 
son  attainted." 

It  is  on  that  Judge  Story  is  commenting.  The  gentleman  argued  that 
there  had  been  in  England  abuses  with  regard  to  corruption  of  blood  and 
forfeiture  of  estates.  Persons  had  been  found  guilty  of  treason  after  death, 
and  estates  had  been  forfeited  after  the  person  attainted  had  died.  Mon 
strous  abuses  had  grown  in  consequence  of  declaring  the  blood  to  be  attaint 
ed  after  death ;  men  were  so  blackened  by  the  attaint  that  they  could  not 
transmit  an  inheritance  to  their  descendants.  Premising  these  facts  of 
history,  the  gentleman  argued  that  the  object  of  this  mooted  clause  of  our 
Constitution  was  to  prevent  such  abuses.  That  was  the  main  point  of  the 
gentleman's  argument.  That  it  is  a  gross  fallacy  I  shall  demonstrate. 
He  said,  and  said  very  truly : 

"  In  further  support  of  my  position,  let  me  advert  to  the  fact  that  in  England,  long 
prior  to  and  at  the  adoption  of  our  Constitution,  attainder  of  treason  after  the  death  of 
the  supposed  traitor  (I  mean  his  natural  death  before  trial  or  even  accusation)  was  of  fre 
quent  occurrence.  This  was  a  monstrous  doctrine,  shocking  to  every  principle  of  justice 
upon  which  the  criminal  code  is  founded,  to  accuse  a  man  of  crime  after  death,  when 
none  is  to  speak  for  his  innocence,  to  proceed  to  trial  and  judgment,  to  wrest  from  inno 
cent  hands  that  property  which  by  law  upon  his  death  descended  to  and  vested  in  his 
heirs,  and  forfeit  their  property,  and  not  his  property,  to  the  Government  for  his  supposed 
criminal  conduct.  Is  it  not  more  just  and  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Constitution 
intended  to  embrace  and  provide  against  this  monstrous  perversion  of  natural  justice,  than 
that  it  intended  so  absurd  a  proposition  as  that  the  forfeiture  of  estate  should  only  be  for 
that  brief  period  of  time  between  sentence  of  death  and  its  execution  ?  " 

I  answer  the  question  the  gentleman  puts  by  saying  that  it  is  mon 
strous,  that  it  is  a  great  and  grievous  wrong,  thus  to  attaint  a  man  and  for 
feit  his  estate  after  his  death.  The  history  of  England  in  that  regard  is 
red  with  blood  and  black  with  cruelty.  But  from  it  our  fathers  learned  a 
lesson.  To  stain  the  memory  after  death,  to  corrupt  the  blood  after  it  had 
ceased  to  pulsate,  and  to  "  rob  the  innocent  posterity  of  the  inheritance 
which,  by  the  laws  of  the  realm,  had  descended  to  and  vested  in  them,  as 


CIVIL   WAR.  345 

the  lawful  descendants  of  their  ancestor,"  was  so  revolting  to  every  sense 
of  right  and  justice,  that  I  join  with  the  gentleman  in  execrating  such 
baseness.  The  creative  minds  which  gave  form,  life,  beauty,  and  sym 
metry  to  our  Federal  system  did  not  tolerate  such  barbarous  codes.  They 
saw  these  monstrosities.  Ay,  sir,  and  in  our  matchless  Constitution  they 
provided  against  their  occurrence  here  in  this  free  and  better  country  ; 
but  not  by  the  clause  to  which  the  gentleman  would  refer.  If  the  gentleman 
had  read  the  Constitution  and  the  authoritative  commentary  more  care 
fully,  he  would  have  found  in  a  previous  clause  of  the  Constitution,  which 
says  that  "no  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be  passed,"  the 
solution  of  the  problem  which  he  discussed.  He  would  then  have  seen 
how  amply  our  fathers  guarded  against  those  monstrous  abuses  of  power 
which  reached  into  the  tomb  and  dishonored  and  disinherited  those  who 
surviving  mourned.  The  argument  of  the  gentleman  is  answered  by  re 
ferring  him  to  that  sweeping  clause  of  the  Constitution  against  all  attain 
ders.  Judge  Story  says,  in  speaking  of  that  very  clause  : 

"  Such  acts  have  often  been  resorted  to  in  foreign  Governments  as  a  common  engine 
of  State  ;  and  even  in  England  they  have  been  pushed  to  the  most  extravagant  extent  in 
bad  times,  reaching  as  well  to  the  absent  and  the  dead  as  to  the  living.  Sir  Edward  Coke 
has  mentioned  it  to  be  among  the  transcendent  powers  of  Parliament,  that  an  act  may  be 
passed  to  attaint  a  man  after  he  is  dead.  And  the  reigning  monarch  who  was  slain  at 
Bosworth,  is  said  to  have  been  attainted  by  an  act  of  Parliament  a  few  months  after  his 
death,  notwithstanding  the  absurdity  of  deeming  him  at  once  in  possession  of  the  throne 
and  a  traitor.  The  punishment  has  often  been  inflicted  without  calling  upon  the  party 
accused  to  answer,  or  without  even  the  formality  of  proof,  and  sometimes  because  the 
law  in  its  ordinary  course  of  proceedings  would  acquit  the  offender.  The  injustice  and 
iniquity  of  such  acts  in  general  constitute  an  irresistible  argument  against  the  existence 
of  the  power.  In  a  free  Government  it  would  be  intolerable,  and  in  the  hands  of  a  reign 
ing  faction  it  might  be,  and  probably  would  be,  abused  to  the  ruin  and  death  of  the  most 
virtuous  citizens.  Bills  of  this  sort  have  been  most  usually  passed  in  England  in  times 
of  rebellion,  or  of  gross  subserviency  to  the  Crown,  or  of  violent  political  excitements — 
periods  in  which  all  nations  are  most  liable  (as  well  the  free  as  the  enslaved)  to  forget 
their  duties  and  to  trample  upon  the  rights  and  liberties  of  others." — 3  Story,  p.  210. 

The  wrong  complained  of  by  the  gentleman  is  one  for  which  he  finds  a 
remedy  in  another  clause  which  he  supposes  was  intended  to  limit  the  pro 
ceedings  and  not  the  forfeiture  of  estate  to  the  life  of  the  person  attainted. 
Being  thus  simply  provided  against  in  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  against 
bills  of  attainder,  what  other  intention  or  use  can  there  be  for  the  clause 
in  controversy  except  to  limit  the  forfeiture  of  the  estate  during  the  life  of 
the  person  attainted? 

I  have  agreed  with  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  in  condemning,  with  all 
the  severity  of  language,  the  attaint  after  death  and  the  robbing  of  the  inno 
cent  children  who  would  legally  take  the  estate.  But,  as  a  matter  of  enlight 
ened  law,  public  decency,  and  Christian  morality,  I  cannot  perceive  how 
such  a  case  differs  from  the  bill  before  us,  which  he  sustains,  and  which 
proposes  to  despoil  the  children  of  their  inheritance  for  the  crime  of  the 
parent.  Does,  it  make  the  one  a  more  heinous  wrong  that  the  attaint  is 
after  death  and  the  property  had  already  descended  by  statute  ?  No,  sir ; 
the  outrage  in  both  cases  consists  in  robbing  the  helpless  and  weak,  in  pun 
ishing  the  innocent  for  the  guilty.  To  prevent  this,  in  the  interest  of 
society  and  in  the  sacred  name  of  the  family,  and  to  save  the  innocent 
from  shame  as  well  as  from  want,  our  Constitution  declares,  that  the  for- 


346  EIGHT   YEARS    EST   CONGRESS. 

fciturc  should  not  go  beyond  the  life  of  the  person  attainted.  The  grave 
shall  hide  his  shame.  The  child  shall  begin  its  life  clear  from  stain,  un 
sullied  from  the  attaint  of  its  parent's  life,  and  the  inheritance  it  had  ex 
pected  from  the  physical  source  of  its  being,  shall  not  be  snatched  away 
by  unlineal  hands  or  tyrannic  rapacity. 

Too  abundantly  does  history  cumulate  the  proof  of  the  unwisdom  of 
such  legislation  as  that  proposed  by  this  bill.  Such  legislation  is  the  pre 
mium  which  has  ever  been  offered  by  power  to  the  cormorants  who  cling 
to  it,  in  order  to  perpetuate  itself  by  sharing  in  the  plunder.  It  is  the  rc- 
Avard  which  the  dominant  dynasty  always  gives  to  the  gilded  flies  which 
buzz  about  the  corpse  of  its  victim  to  fatten  on  its  corruption.  Perhaps 
the  saddest  illustrations  which  this  evil  time  will  furnish  of  its  lustful  de 
generacy,  will  be  the  clamoring  of  the  partisan  spies,  informers,  and  mer 
cenaries,  who,  too  cowardly  to  meet  the  enemy  in  fight,  will  follow  in  the 
wake  of  our  armies  to  speculate  upon  the  plantations  and  estates  which 
the  rebellion  has  forfeited,  but  which  the  Constituti9n,  in  its  beautiful  be 
nignity,  would  have  saved  to  the  innocent  inheritor. 

Is  it  necessary  to  add  further  authority  as  to  the  impolicy  or  unconsti 
tutionally  of  this  bill?  I  might  appeal  to  the  writings  of  the  gentleman 
who  has  been  employed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  codify  the  laws  of 
war.  I  mean  the  Dr.  Francis  Lieber  who  wrote  so  well  of  public  law 
and  liberty  before  he  had  official  employment.  I  could  read  from  his  vol 
ume  on  "  Civil  Liberty"  to  show  the  scope  and  spirit  of  that  part  of  the 
Constitution  under  debate.  He  says  "  that  the  true  protection  of  individ 
ual  property  demands  likewise  the  exclusion  of  confiscation" — 

Mr.  STEVENS.  As  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  is  discussing  a  grave 
matter,  let  me  ask  him  a  question. 

Mr.  Cox.     Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  STEVENS.  The  Constitution  provides  that  Congress  shall  have 
power  to  declare  the  punishment  of  treason  ;  but  no  attainder  of  treason 
shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture.  Now,  has  not  Congress 
power  to  punish  other  than  by  attainder,  and  if  that  other  punishment  is 
the  forfeiture  of  estate,  does  it  violate  the  first  clause  of  the  Constitution? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  answer  the  gentleman  by  referring  him  to  the  President's 
message.  [Laughter.]  The  President,  in  his  message  to  the  last  Con 
gress,  held  that  to  divest  the  title  forever — "  for  treason  and  ingredients 
of  treason " — was  unconstitutional.  You  passed  the  joint  resolution  to 
obviate  his  scruples.  The  gentleman  must  stand  by  the  Administration. 
I  charge  him  with  being  a  traitor  or  a  secessionist  if  he  now  desert  Mr. 
Lincoln.  [Great  laughter.]  I  hope  my  friend  from  Pennsylvania,  after 
so  long  hurling  his  envenomed  shafts  of  satire  against  this  side  of  the 
House  because  we  did  not  always  sustain  the  President,  will  not  himself 
fail  of  his  loyalty.  There  may  be  other  punishments  beside  the  forfeiture  ; 
but  the  punishment  you  now  propose,  and  which  I  am  now  discussing,  is 
unconstitutional.  So  says  the  Administration.  I  proudly  stand  by  the 
Administration  on  this  point.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  STEVENS.  I  understand  the  gentleman  as  not  giving  his  own 
opinions,  but  those  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Mr.  Cox.  When  interrupted,  I  was  giving  the  views  of  others — Judge 
Story,  Judge  Curtis,  and  Dr.  Lieber.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  all 


CIVIL   WAE. 


347 


of  Mr.  Lincoln's  views  on  that  subject  arc  the  best.  I  only  say  that  they 
should  be  binding  upon  that  side  of  the  House  who  have  so  often  urged 
that  failing  to  sustain  the  Administration  you  fail  to  sustain  the  Govern 
ment.  Where,  then,  do  gentlemen  stand?  Opposing  the  constitutional 
views  of  their  chief!  How  handsomely  you  look  before  the  country  in 
that  capacity,  after  your  philippics  against  our  disloyalty  !  Here  is  a  bill 
which  involves  the  very  exercise  of  the  highest  sovereign  power — confis 
cation  of  the  estates  of  persons  absolutely — a  scheme  of  forfeiture  involv 
ing  hundreds,  nay,  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars,  or  of  landed  estates,* 
involving  in  its  consequences  the  prolongation  of  war  and  the  procrastina 
tion  of  peace,  involving  the  very  fate  of  this  Union  and  all  the  immense 
interests  imbound  with  it  to  the  latest  generations,  and  about  which  the 
President  was  so  anxious  that  he  took  the  extraordinary  trouble  to  send 
an  admonitory  message  to  prevent  his  friends  committing  a  flagrant  breach 
of  the  Constitution,  advising  them  that  he  would  veto  the  measure  for  its 
gross  unconstitutionally ;  yet  gentlemen  stand  here,  after  the  lapse  of  a 
year  or  more,  and  by  some  "  progressive  philology"  undertake  to  convict 
and  censure  their  own  Executive,  overrule  his  matured  judgment  and 
sacred  oath,  and  by  failing  to  give  him  the  required  support  on  so  momen 
tous  a  measure,  become,  by  their  own  cogent  logic,  traitors  to  the  Govern 
ment  ! 

Mr.  BROOMALL.  The  Constitution,  punishing  treason,  allows  the 
alternative  of  fine  and  imprisonment  to  be  imposed.  If,  then,  the  fine  be 
levied  upon  the  offender's  land,  and  that  land  is  sold,  I  want  to  know 
whether  the  purchaser  would  only  take  a  life  estate  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  Certainly,  sir.  Under  an  honest  and  fearless  judiciary,  up 
holding  the  Constitution  as  the  supreme  law,  he  would  only  get  a  life 
estate.  This  may  be  an  absurd  conclusion  ;  but  I  know  that  Judge  Story 
does  not  think  it  absurd,  nor  does  the  history  of  these  confiscations  show 

*  The  debate  having  been  hurriedly  forced  on  the  House,  I  had  not  the  time  to  pre 
pare  any  statements  as  to  the  property  proposed  to  be  reached  by  the  Bill.  The  following 
table,  from  the  Census  of  1860,  will  approximate  to  it : 

Statement   of  the  No.  of  Acres  of  Land,  Improved  and  Unimproved,   Cash  Value  of 
Farms,  and  the  No.  of  White  Children  under  Fifteen  Years  of  Age. 


STATES. 

LANDS 
IMPROVED. 

LANDS 
UNIMPROVED. 

CASH  VALTTE  OF 
FAEMS. 

White 
Children 
under  15 
Years. 

ACRES. 

ACRES. 

DOLLARS. 

North  Carolina 

6,517,284 

17  245  685 

143  301  065 

265,496 

South  Carolina  

4,572,060 

11,623,860 

139,652,508 

121,386 

Geor"ia 

8  062,758 

18587,732 

157072,803 

264,800 

6,462,987 

12,687,913 

172,176,168 

238,704 

Mississippi        .        .  . 

5  150  008 

11,703,556 

186,866,914 

167,588 

Louisiana    

2,734,901 

6,765,879 

215,565,421 

141,741 

Florida 

676  464 

2,273,008 

16,371,684 

34,621 

6,897,974 

13,457,960 

272,555,054 

364,518 

Arkansas         

1  933  036 

7,609,938 

91,673,403 

154,296 

Total     

43,007,472 

101,955,531 

1,395,235,020 

1,743,150 

348  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

it  to  be  absurd.  By  no  scheme  or  device  can  you  directly  or  indirectly 
forfeit  the  estate  for  treason,  except  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  BROOMALL.  If  the  same  individual  should  be  indicted  before  some 
court  for  stealing  chickens,  and  fined  ten  dollars,  and  his  lands  sold  for  the 
fine,  could  the  estate  be  sold  in*  fee  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  If  the  gentleman  would  get  a  civil  judgment,  take  out  a 
fieri 'facias ,  and  make  a  levy,  then  I  suppose  he  could  sell  the  fee.  But 
that  question  of  stealing  chickens  does  not  interest  my  constituents  [laugh 
ter],  at  least  those  who  are  Avhitc.  Besides,  there  are  reasons  growing 
out  of  the  difference  between  the  political  crime  of  treason  and  the  malum 
in  se  involved  in  stealing,  which  led  our  ancestors  to  frame  the  clause  in 
question. 

When  interrupted  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  I  was  about  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  Dr.  Lieber's  volume.  He  may  not  be 
good  authority  for  my  friend  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  KELLEY],  who 
has  informed  the  House  that  he  is  in  communication  with  him,  though  he 
told  us  that  he  preferred  his  own  instincts  to  Dr.  Lieber's  reason.  He 
argued  the  other  day  that  he  would  rather  trust  his  own  instincts  of  liberty 
than  the  authority  of  the  war  codifier.  We  have  had  too  much  legislation 
*'  upon  instinct."  I  think  at  the  time  Dr.  Lieber  wrote  the  volume  from 
which  I  was  about  to  quote,  that  he  was  looking  at  the  spirit  of  the  law 
with  that  large  roundabout  common-sense  view  which  a  student  of  Mon 
tesquieu  might  wrell  take  ;  and  with  that  enlarged  observation  he  tells  us  : 

"  The  true  protection  of  individual  property  demands  likewise  the  exclusion  of  con 
fiscation.  For  although  confiscation,  as  a  punishment,  is  to  be  rejected  on  account  of  the 
undefined  character  of  the  punishment,  depending  not  upon  itself,  but  upon  the  fact 
whether  the  punished  person  has  any  property  and  how  much,  it  is  likewise  inadmissible 
on  the  ground  that  individual  property  implies  individual  transmission,  which  confiscation 
totally  destroys.  It  would  perhaps  not  be  wholly  unjust  to  deprive  an  individual  of  his 
praperty,  as  a  punishment  for  certain  crimes,  if  we  would  allow  it  to  pass  to  his  heirs. 
We  do  it  in  fact  when  we  imprison  a  man  for  life,  and  submit  him  to  the  regular  prison 
discipline,  disallowing  him  any  benefit  of  the  property  he  may  possess  ;  but  it  is  unjust 
to  deprive  his  children  or  other  heirs  of  the  individual  property,  not  to  speak  of  the  appe 
tizing  effect  which  confiscation  of  property  has  often  produced  upon  governments. 

"  The  English  attainder  and  corruption  of  blood,  so  far  as  it  affects  property,  is  hos 
tile  to  this  great,  principle  of  the  utmost  protection  of  individual  property,  and  has  come 
down  to  the  present  times  from  a  period  of  semi-communism,  when  the  king  was  con 
sidered  the  primary  owner  of  all  land.  Corruption  of  blood  is  distinctly  abolished  by  our 
Constitution." — Dr.  Lieber  on  Civil  Liberty,  vol.  i.,  p.  123. 

What  does  the  learned  publicist  mean  by  the  "  appetizing  effect  of  con 
fiscation  upon  Governments  "  ?  Did  his  prescient  mind  take  in  the  adju 
dications  of  Judge  Underwood  ?  Did  he  look  forward  to  the  auction  at 
Alexandria?  Did  he  see  town  lots  and  Arlington  heights  under  the  ham 
mer?  And  did  he  see  how  little  enthusiasm  life-estates  produced,  and 
what  an  appetizing  effect  the  fee  simple  would  have  produced?  Has  the 
learned  doctor  struck,  in  his  comprehensive  reasoning,  the  motive  for  this 
bill?  I  charge  that  the  object  of  this  bill  is  to  make  a  case  in  the  courts, 
if  possible,  whereby  some  Judge  like  Underwood,  by  a  corrupt,  unjust, 
and  dishonest  decision,  may  overturn  the  organic  law  to  give  a  quasi-abso 
lute  title,  and  thus  place  the  burden  on  the  heirs  hereafter  of  contesting 
for  their  rights,  and  by  harassing  and  oppressing  the  innocent  and  help 
less,  gain  that  possession  which  proverbially  is  nine  points  of  the  law  in 


CIVIL   WAK.  349 

favor  of  its  continuance.  It  may  well  be  asked  by  a  considerate  legisla 
tor,  how  long  will  the  innocent  heirs  remain  out  of  their  property  if  they 
must  sue  and  await  the  decision  of  the  question  in  the  courts  ?  Shall  it 
be  until  they  attain  their  majority,  or  when  ?  After  the  property  has  been 
once  taken,  there  will,  I  fear,  be  but  little  remedy  in  the  courts,  for  the 
judiciary  itself  may  be  the  next  department  to  cower  before  the  behests  of 
power  and  the  "  military  necessity  "  of  the  hour. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  opposed  to  this  bill,  because  I  have  gleaned 
from  history  a  profound  distrust  of  all  such  measures  as  a  means  of 
restoring  allegiance  and  order.  It  is  the  system  of  revenge.  It  is 
hate  enacted  into  law.  It  will  not  and  it  cannot  come  to  good.  It 
is  unchristian.  Indeed,  any  system  which  does  not  restore  good  will  and 
kindness  between  the  two  sections,  and  especially  if  it  robs  the  coming 
generation,  will  only  tend  to  perpetuate  wit^i  the  children  the  hate  which 
we  might  hope  would  evanish  with  time.  Such  a  system  is  the  very 
wantonness  and  excess  of  tyranny.  It  always  has  in  it  a  self-punishing 
and  corrective  power.  It  carries  a  Nemesis  with  it  as  inexorable  as  fate. 
The  history  of  Poland,  Venetia,  and  Ireland  should  make  us  pause.  Do 
we  indeed  desire  to  restore  our  Union  ?  Do  we  desire  to  keep  our  plight 
to  the  Constitution  ?  Do  we  crave  in  our  hearts  the  return  of  that  happier 
time  when  our  public  order  reposed  securely  in  the  hearts  of  the  people 
and  in  reverence  for  the  Constitution?  If  we  do,  let  us  rather  repeal  our 
former  harsh  and  vindictive  legislation,  and  not  enact  other  and  harsher 
penalties  ;  and  if  war  must  needs  go  on,  if  blood,  blood,  blood  must  still 
flow,  and  force  must  still  be  used  against  those  who  were  once  our  breth 
ren  in  the  same  nationality,  then  let  us  add  to  that  force  at  every  moment 
of  decided  success  to  our  arms,  at  every  pause  in  the  dread  conflict,  the 
benignant  policy  of  conciliation. 

Mr.  KELLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  permit  me  to  ask  him 
the  reference  of  his  quotation  from  Dr.  Lieber  ? 

Mr.  Cox.     I  will  give  it  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  KELLEY.  I  do  not  know  whether  his  quotation  is  a  correct  one, 
for  the  doctor  has  protested  that  the  gentleman  has  always  misquoted  him, 
and  charged  him  with  entertaining  opinions  the  reverse  of  what  his 
opinions  really  are. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  when  he  says  I  have 
misquoted  Dr.  Lieber,  cannot  be  correct,  for  I  have  not  pretended  to  quote 
him  until  to-day.  I  said  the  other  day  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  unre- 
publican  scheme  of  conscription.  I  have  the  authority,  and  I  will  pro 
duce  it  at  the  proper  time. 

Mr.  KELLEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me,  I  would  like  to  have 
the  doctor  himself  speak  upon  this  subject.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  note 
from  the  doctor,  of  the  date  of  December  6,  1863. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  is  not  quite  as  logical 
as  I  could  wish.  I  do  not  propose  now  to  discuss  the  conscription  bill. 
I  will  pay  my  respects  hereafter  to  the  gentleman  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  KELLEY.  I  would  rather  the  question  be  between  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  and  the  gentleman  he  quoted  as  authority  than  between  the 
gentleman  and  myself. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  should  feel  it  a  much  greater  honor  if  it  were  so. 


350  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

[Laughter.]  I  was  about  to  conclude  by  oue  general  observation.  The 
members  upon  this  side  of  the  House  have  not  made,  and  do  not  intend 
to  make,  any  factious  opposition  to  this  Administration.  We  intend  to 
sustain  it  to  the  fullest  extent  of  our  ability  in  every  legal  way  which  it 
may  mark  out — in  every  way  possible  by  which  we  can  restore  the  old 
order  of  things  in  this  country.  Our  views  do  not  always  agree  with 
your  views  as  to  the  best  mode  of  restoring  the  Union  and  preserving  the 
Constitution.  If  we  could  but  agree  upon  one  object — the  rehabilitation 
of  the  States,  with  all  their  rights,  dignity,  and  equality  unimpaired — 
though  our  views  may  be  diverse  as  to  the  means  to  attain  that  object, 
this  Congress  might  carve  out  a  historic  fame  as  the  restorer  of  that  con 
stitutional  freedom  which  the  last  Congress  did  so  much  to  destroy. 
Upon  this  side  we  will  sustain  any  measure  to  put  down  rebellion  which 
is  warranted  by  the  Constitution.  But  we  will  never  lay  sacrilegious 
hands  upon  the  ark  of  our  covenant.  We  constitute  the  constitutional  op 
position  to  this  Administration.  We  have  no  opposition  except  it  be  in 
spired  by  that  instrument.  Its  written  grants  of  power,  its  limitations, 
and,  especially  in  these  times,  its  reserved  powers,  furnish  the  enginery 
of  our  antagonism.  Drawing  from  this  source,  we  fear  no  criticism. 
We  defy  all  aspersions.  Come  evil  or  good  report,  we  will  labor — it 
may  be  in  vain — to  protect  that  instrument  against  any  such  breaches  as 
that  proposed  by  this  bill  and  legislation  of  like  character.  Since  I  have 
been  a  member  of  this  House  I  have  labored,  without  rest,  to  make  up  in 
vigilance  and  study  what  I  lacked  in  years  and  experience,  that  I  might 
perform  my  whole  duty  to  my  constituents  ;  and  with  one  object  ever  up 
permost  in  my  mind — the  object  which  Daniel  Webster  held  to  be  first 
with  a  free  people — the  preservation  of  their  liberty  by  maintaining  con 
stitutional  restraints  and  just  divisions  of  power. 

Mr.  ORTH.  Before  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  takes  his  scat,  I  would 
like  to  ask  him  one  or  two  questions,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  will  answer 
them  without  hesitation.  My  first  question  is,  whether  he  is  in  favor  of 
punishing  the  traitors  who  have  been  guilty  of  bringing  on  this  rebellion  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir.  I  am  in  favor  of  punishing  traitors  according 
to  the  Constitution,  by  trial,  by  conviction,  and  by  all  the  modes  pointed 
out  for  the  punishment  of  treason. 

Mr.  ORTH.  I  have  no  doubt  of  that.  My  next  question  is,  whether 
he  is  in  favor  of  punishing  traitors  by  the  death  penalty? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  almost  every  day  I  have  been  voting  money 
and  men  to  inflict  that  penalty. 

Mr.  ORTJI.  I  would  ask  him  whether  taking  from  innocent  children 
the  life  of  the  father  who  sustains  them,  is  not  visiting  the  sins  of  the 
parent  on  the  children  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  one  of  the  incidents  which,  perhaps, 
might  have  once  been  avoided,  but  which  we  cannot  now  avoid,  but  for 
which,  praise  God  !  I  am  not  responsible. 

Now,  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  whether  he  is  in  favor  of  punishing 
innocent  persons  for  the  guilt  of  their  parents  ? 

Mr.  ORTII.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  Cox.     Well,  sir,  then  you  must  be  against  this  bill. 


CIVIL   WAR.  351 

Mr.  ORTH.     I  contend  that  we  punish  those  who  are  guilty  during 
their  lifetimes. 

Mr.  Cox.    I  would  be  very  glad  to  welcome  the  gentleman  within  the 
pale  of  humanity. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  wish  to  ask  my  colleague  a  question,  not  with  any 
factious  purpose,  nor  with  any  design  to  prevent  a  calm  discussion  of  so 
important  a  question  as  this.  I  am  sorry  that  this  discussion  has  assumed 
a  somewhat  partisan  character.  It  ought  not  to  have  that  character  at  all, 
and  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  it  shall  not.  I  wish  to  ask  ray  colleague  a 
practical  rather  than  a  legal  question.  I  wish  to  know  whether  the  ob 
jection  he  raises  to  this  bill  is  not  itself  obnoxious  to  this  objection :  we 
punish  men  for  civil  and  for  criminal  offences,  great  and  small,  in  all  the 
higher  and  lower  courts  of  the  country,  by  taking  their  property  from  them, 
so  that  their  children  can  never  have  the  benefit  of  it  after  the  parent's 
death.  Now,  while  we  do  this  constantly  in  our  courts,  by  civil  and  crim 
inal  process,  does  not  my  colleague  propose  to  make  an  exception  in  favor 
of  the  crime  of  treason  ?  Why  should  not  the  children  of  traitors  suffer 
the  same  kind  of  loss  and  inconvenience  as  the  children  of  thieves  and  of 
other  felons  do?  I  ask  the  gentleman  whether  his  position  does  not  in 
volve  this  great  absurdity  and  injustice  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  say  to  my  colleague  that,  as  he  knows  very  well,  in 
criminal  procedures  we  do  not  at  once  by  execution  reach  the  real  estate. 
But  my  colleague  cannot  withdraw  me  from  my  constitutional  position  as 
to  this  bill.  All  I  propose  to  do  in  opposing  this  bill  is  to  stand  by  the 
Constitution,  and  to  stand  by  it  all  the  time,  regardless  of  consequences ; 
and  I  will  ask  my  distinguished  colleague  how  he  reads  that  clause  of  the 
Constitution  under  debate.  Does  he  believe  in  the  construction  which  has 
been  given  to  it  by  the  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  ORTH]  ?  Does  he 
believe  that  he  can  constitutionally  take  a  traitor's  property  forever,  or 
only  during  his  life  ?  Does  he  read  the  Constitution  in  opposition  to  Judge 
Story  and  to  Judge  Curtis?  Would  he  set  aside  the  construction  given  to 
it  by  the  Jaw  of  1790?  Or  would  he,  dare  he,  with  his  oath  upon  him, 
now  break  the  Constitution  by  voting  for  this  measure,  in  order  to  get 
absolute  title  to  the  lands  of  those  in  revolt?  Would  he,  to  aggravate  the 
punishment  of  the  traitor,  or  to  punish  the  innocent  children  of  the  rebels, 
break  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  would  not  break  the  Constitution  for  any  such 
purpose. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  am  very  glad  to  hear  that. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  would  not  break  the  Constitution  at  all,  unless  it 
should  become  necessary  to  overleap  its  barriers  to  save  the  Government 
and  the  Union.  But  I  do  not  see  that  in  this  bill  we  do  break  the 
Constitution.  If  the  gentleman  can  show  me  that  it  violates  the  Consti 
tution,  I  will  vote  against  it  with  him,  even  though  every  member  of  my 
party  votes  for  it ;  that  makes  no  difference  to  me.  I  will  say,  however, 
that  I  had  supposed  that  the  intention  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution 
was  to  prevent  the  punishment  of  treason  when  an  individual  was  declared 
guilty  of  it  after  his  death.  I  had  supposed  that  that  was  the  purpose  of 
it,  and  if  so,  it  seems  that  this  bill  is  not  obnoxious  to  tha  objection  which 
the  gentleman  raises  to  it. 


352  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Cox.  If  the  gentleman  will  examine  that  other  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  I  pointed  out,  he  will  find,  as  Judge  Story  found,  that 
it  provided  for  the  outrage  of  trial  and  punishment  of  treason  after  the 
death  of  the  person,  by  prohibiting  all  bills  of  attainder.  The  other  clause 
of  the  Constitution  is  so  exceedingly  plain  that  the  wayfaring  man — even 
Mr.  Lincoln  himself — did  not  err  in  construing  it. 


MISCEGENATION. 

FATE  OF  THE  FREEDMAN IMPROVIDENT  EMANCIPATION — CONSTITUTIONAL  PROVISIONS  CON 
SIDERED — LAWS  OF  PHYSIOLOGY — BLENDING  OF  RACES — PROGRESSIVE  ABOLITION — DEMOC 
RACY  NOT  PRO-SLAVERY — NON-INTERVENTION  ABOUT  THE  NEGRO. 

ON  the  17th  of  February,  1864,  the  House  were  considering  the  bill 
to  establish  a  Bureau  of  Freedman's  Affairs,  when,  by  a  diversion  from 
the  regular  debate,  the  subject  of  "  Miscegenation  "  came  up.  The  pam 
phlet  upon  which  Mr.  Cox  based  his  remarks,  afterwards  turned  out  to 
be  apocryphal.  It  was  written  by  two  young  men  connected  with  the 
New  York  press.  So  congenial  were  its  sentiments  with  those  of  the 
leading  Abolitionists,  and  so  ingeniously  was  its  irony  disguised,  that  it 
was  not  only  indorsed  by  the  fanatical  leaders  all  over  the  land,  but  no  one 
in  Congress  thought  of  questioning  the  genuineness  and  seriousness  of  the 
document.  This  species  of  logical  irony  has  been  used  by  writers  of 
greater  fame  than  the  authors  of  the  pamphlet.  Burke  used  it,  and 
Archbishop  Whately  used  it ;  the  former  to  vindicate  civilization,  and 
the  latter  Christianity.  The  "  Historic  Doubts  concerning  Napoleon," 
by  Whately,  found  its  believers ;  and  many  a  sceptic  embraced  its  most 
absurd  conclusions  in  his  eagerness  to  repudiate  the  truth. 

The  speech  given  below  had  a  very  extensive  circulation  in  the  press 
of  the  country.  The  Republicans  were  much  puzzled  by  the  frankness  of 
their  secret  champion.  Mr.  Beecher's  paper  indulged  a  suspicion  that 
the  author  was  not  altogether  in  earnest ;  but  in  the  same  article  it  uttered 
the  same  sentiments  contained  in  the  pamphlet.  On  the  25th  of  February, 
1864,  in  an  article  on  the  union  of  races,  he  "  agreed  with  a  large  portion 
of  these  pages,"  referring  to  the  pamphlet.  He  contended  that  every 
great  nation  had  been  married  into  its  greatness  by  a  union  of  many  stocks. 
To  quote : 

"  Like  a  coat  of  many  colors,  every  great  nation  is  a  patchwork  out  of  the  shreds  and 
remnants  of  former  nations.  The  American  people  is,  in  like  manner,  a  stock  of  many 
grafts.  An  amalgamation  of  races  is  going  on  here  to  an  extent  almost  without  a  parallel 
in  history.  Every  nation  under  the  sun  is  making  some  gift  of  its  blood  to  our  American 
veins.  Immigration  from  foreign  lands  was  never  so  multitudinous  as  now.  Leaving  out 
of  view  our  native-born  Americans  of  English  descent,  there  are  enough  of  other  stocks 
on  this  soil  to  make  three  other  nations — namely,  the  Irish,  the  Germans,  and  the  Ne- 


CIVIL   WAR.  353 

groes.  Even  the  negroes  number  one  million  more  than  the  whole  population  of  the 
United  States  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  But  these  three  stocks  have  not  come 
hither  to  establish  themselves  as  distinct  peoples  ;  but  each  to  join  itself  to  each,  till  all 
together  shall  be  built  up  into  the  monumental  nation  of  the  earth !  We  believe  the 
whole  human  race  are  one  family — born,  every  individual,  with  a  common  prerogative  to 
do  the  best  he  can  for  his  own  welfare ;  that  in  political  societies,  all  men,  of  whatever 
various  race  or  color,  should  stand  on  an  absolute  equality  before  the  law ;  that  whites 
and  blacks  should  intermarry  if  they  wish,  and  should  not  unless  they  wish ;  that  the 
negro  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  remain  in  this  country,  but  is  to  remain  here  without  being 
allowed — asking  nobody's  permission  but  his  own  ;  that  we  shall  have  no  permanent  set 
tlement  of  the  negro  question  till  our  haughtier  white  blood,  looking  at  the  face  of  a  ne 
gro,  shall  forget  that  he  is  black,  and  remember  only  that  he  is  a  citizen.  Whether  or 
not  the  universal  complexion  of  the  human  family  at  the  millennium  "  will  not  be  white 
or  black,  but  brown  or  colored,"  we  certainly  believe  that  the  African-tinted  members  of 
our  community  will  in  the  future  gradually  bleach  out  their  blackness.  The  facts  of  to 
day  prove  this  beyond  denial.  Already  three-fourths  of  the  colored  people  of  the  United 
States  have  white  blood  in  their  veins.  The  two  bloods  have  been  gradually  intermin 
gling  ever  since  there  were  whites  and  blacks  among  our  population.  This  intermingling 
will  continue.  Under  slavery,  it  has  been  forced  and  frequent.  Under  freedom  it  will  be 
voluntary  and-infrequent.  But  by-and-by — counting  the  years  not  by  Presidential  cam 
paigns,  but  by  centuries — the  negro  of  the  South,  growing  paler  with  every  generation, 
will  at  last  completely  hide  his  face  under  the  snow." 

Dr.  Cheever's  paper,  "  The  Principia,"  accepting  the  theory  of  the 
pamphlet,  and  commending  its  earnest  thought,  said  that  it  needed  not  a 
tithe  of  it  to  prove  that  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men, 
endowed  them  with  equal  rights,  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  all  the  civil 
and  political  prerogatives  and  privileges  of  other  citizens. 

The  "  Tribune"  of  the  16th  of  March,  1864,  urged  the  intelligent  dis 
cussion  of  the  subject,  and  accepting  the  "  one  blood "  theory,  drew  the 
conclusion, 

"  That,  under  the  Constitution  in  its  most  liberal  interpretation,  and  admitting  our 
cherished  American  doctrine  of  equal  human  rights,  if  a  white  man  pleases  to  marry  a 
black  woman,  the  mere  fact  that  she  is  black  gives  no  one  a  right  to  interfere  to  prevent 
or  set  aside  such  marriage.  We  do  not  say  that  such  union  would  be  wise,  but  we  do 
distinctly  assert  that  society  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  wisdom  of  matches,  and  that  we 
shah1  have  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  a  great  many  foolish  ones  which  laws  are  powerless 
to  prevent.  We  do  not  say  that  such  matches  would  be  moral ;  but  we  do  declare  that 
they  would  be  infinitely  more  so  than  the  promiscuous  concubinage  which  has  so  long 
shamelessly  prevailed  upon  the  Southern  plantations.  If  a  man  can  so  far  conquer  his  re 
pugnance  to  a  black  woman  as  to  make  her  the  mother  of  his  children,  we  ask,  in  the 
name  of  the  divine  law  and  of  decency,  why  he  should  not  marry  her  ?  " 

Another  remarkable  phase  of  this  discussion  was  the  queries  pro 
pounded  by  Robert  Dale  Owen,  Dr.  S.  G.  Howe,  and  Col.  McKaye,  Com 
missioners  on  the  Freedman,  as  to  the  capacity  and  condition  of  the 
mulatto,  his  offspring,  and  their  tendency  to  bodily  and  mental  decay. 
"The  Anglo- African"  of  the  20th  February,  1864,  retorted  very  pungently 
upon  these  querists,  and  informed  them  that  as  the  two  publishers  and  one 
editor  of  "The  Anglo- African "  had  had  born  to  them  in  lawful  wedlock 
no  less  than  twenty-nine  children,  of  whom  twenty  are  now  living — 
some  married  and  budding — they  could  not  help  regarding  the  queries  as 
in  a  measure  personal  and  impertinent. 
23 


354  EIGHT   YEARS   LN   CONGRESS. 

In  its  issue  of  the  next  week,  these  publishers  and  editor — so  blessed 
in  their  sweet  domestic  fecundity — took  up  the  speech  which  follows,  and 
the  reference  in  it  made  to  themselves.  They  explained  what  was  other 
wise  obscure  ;  and  added  a  very  clever  though  illogical  jeu  cTesprit,  which 
is  quoted  below  as  an  encouraging  sample  of  African  wit.  It  is  agreeable 
to  find  such  exhibitions.  They  do  much  to  reconcile  us  to  the  belief  that 
if  negro  suffrage  shall  ever  be  accomplished,  we  shall  have,  now  and  then, 
a  very  sprightly  suffragan  of  the  miscegen  stamp.  The  article  is  as  fol 
lows  : 

"What  we  mean  by  complementary  is  this :  a  perfect  man,  or  race,  is  made  of  a  va 
riety  of  characteristics  or  races  ;  wanting  any  of  these  characterietics  he  falls  short  in  so 
far  of  perfection.  These  characteristics,  or  several  of  them,  are  therefore  complementary 
to  the  perfection  of  the  individual  or  the  race.  Hence,  two  races,  holding  nearly  the  same 
characteristics,  can  make  little  if  any  improvement  on  either.  The  Indian  and  Spanish 
races,  especially  in  Mexico,  have  strong  physical  and  intellectual  resemblances ;  hence, 
they  are  not  complementary  of  each  other.  The  Negro  and  the  Aiian  (generally  called 
Caucasian) 'races  have  opposite  and  complementary  characteristics,  physically  and  men 
tally,  or  more  properly,  psychically ;  hence  they  are  likely,  by  their  admixture,  to  produce 
a  more  perfect  race  than  either  are  separately.  We  may  add,  it  is  a  dim  perception  of  this 
great  truth,  which  has  instituted  the  '  Curious  Inquiry '  mentioned  in  another  column  of 
this  paper,  and  which  frightens  such  pure  white  men  as  Hon.  S.  S.  Cox,  of  Ohio.  To  take 
an  illustration  nearer  home.  Our  country,  to-day,  needs  patriots.  It  will  be  generally  ad 
mitted  that  any  '  cross '  between  Hon.  S.  S.  Cox  and  Vallandigham  would  fail  to  pro 
duce  a  patriot,  for  the  simple  and  obvious  reason  that  in  both  the  blood  runs  the  other 
way.  But,  per  contra,  if  we  should  get  up  a  '  cross '  between  Hon.  S.  S.  Cox  and  Capt. 
Robert  Small,  the  result  would  be  an  average  miscegen  and  a  superior  patriot." 

It  is,  however,  a  little  humiliating  to  think  that  so  many  shining  lights 
like  the  editor  of  "  The  Anglo- African,"  should  never  have  suspected  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  pamphlet.  To  the  speech  : 

Mr.  Cox  said  :  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not  rise  for  the  purpose  of  discuss 
ing  this  measure,  only  to  have  it  referred  for  discussion.  I  shall  only 
call  attention  to  its  general  features.  The  member  who  introduced  it  [Mr*. 
ELIOT]  recalled  to  our  minds  the  fact  that  we  opposed  the  confiscation  bill 
for  its  inhumanity.  He  hoped  that  humane  considerations  would  prevail 
as  to  this  bill.  I  wish  that  he  had  set  a  better  example,  by  his  voice  and 
vote  upon  the  other  measure.  This  bill  is  founded  in  part  on  the  confis 
cation  system.  If  that  were  inhuman,  then  this  is  its  aggravation.  The 
former  takes  the  lands  which  are  abandoned  by  loyal  or  disloyal  whites, 
under  the  pressure  of  war ;  while  the  present  bill  turns  these  abandoned 
lands  over  to  the  blacks.  But  motives  of  humanity,  however  pure,  are 
not  the  motives  which  should  prompt  legislation  altogether.  I  only  refer 
to  the  confiscation  part  of  the  measure  to  show  how  comprehensive  and 
all-reaching  is  this  scheme.  The  industrious  gentleman  from  Massachu 
setts  [Mr.  ELIOT]  states  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  confiscation  bill,  of 
which  this  bill  is  the  sequel. 

Mr.  ELIOT.  I  did  not  say  that  I  was  the  author  of  the  confiscation 
bill.  I  said  that  I  reported  it  from  the  Select  Committee  that  had  that 
matter  in  charge. 

Mr.  Cox.     The  gentleman's  modesty  will  not  permit  him  to  claim  the 


CIVIL   WAR.  355 

credit  of  it.  I  rather  think  that  all  of  these  measures  spring  from  the  fer 
tile  brain  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  War  Office  [Mr.  WHITING].  He  is  the 
reservoir  of  all  the  Republican  heresy  and  legislation  proposed  in  this 
House  ;  though  he  is  often  confounded,  I  think,  with  Divine  Providence, 
to  whom  gentlemen  are  erroneously  in  the  habit  of  attributing  these  aboli 
tion  measures. 

But  to  return  to  the  member  from  Massachusetts.  The  effect  of  former 
legislation  has  been,  in  his  opinion,  to  bring  under  the  control  of  the  Gov 
ernment  large  multitudes  of  freedmen  who  "  had  ceased  to  be  slaves,  but 
had  not  learned  how  to  be  free."  To  care  for  these  multitudes  he  presents 
this  bill,  which,  if  not  crude  and  undigested,  yet  is  sweeping  and  revolu 
tionary.  It  begins  a  policy  for  this  Federal  Government  of  limited  and 
express  powers,  so  latitudinarian  that  the  whole  system  is  changed.  If  ' 
the  acts  of  confiscation  and  the  proclamations,  on  which  this  measure  is 
founded,  be  usurpations,  how  can  we  who  have  denounced  them  favor  a 
measure  like  this  ?  According  to  Mr.  Whiting,  this  system,  to  be  com 
plete,  must  include  in  its  provisions  all  the  abandoned  lands,  all  lands  for 
feited  for  taxes,  all  confiscated  lauds,  all  derelict  personalty,  all  colored 
men  free  before  the  war  in  rebellious  districts,  and  all  fugitives  thereto 
from  loyal  States,  all  legal  proceedings  of  confiscation,  all  migrations  of 
blacks  to  and  from  rebel  States,  all  laws  compensating  masters  for  slaves, 
and  all  other  matters  relating  to  the  colored  people,  whether  bond  or  free. 
This  is  a  new  system.  It  opens  a  vast  opportunity  for  corruption  and 
abuse.  It  may  be  inaugurated  in  the  name  of  humanity ;  but  I  doubt, 
sir,  if  any  Government,  much  less  our  Government  of  delegated  powers, 
will  ever  succeed  in  the  philanthropic  line  of  business  such  as  is  contem 
plated  by  this  bill. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  appeals  to  us  to  forget  the  past, 
not  to  inquire  how  these  poor  people  have  become  free,  whether  by  law  or 
by  usurpation,  but  to  look  the  great  fact  in  the  face  "  that  three  million 
slaves  have  become  and  are  becoming  free."  Before  I  come  to  that  great 
fact,  let  me  first  look  to  the  Constitution.  My  oath  to  that  is  the  highest 
humanity.  By  preserving  the  Constitution  amidst  the  rack  of  war,  in 
any  vital  part,  we  are  saving  for  a  better  time  something  of  those  liberties, 
State  and  personal,  which  have  given  so  much  happiness  for  over  seventy 
years  to  so  many  millions  ;  and  which,  under  a  favorable  Administration, 
might  again  restore  contentment  to  our  afflicted  people.  Hence  the  high 
est  humanity  is  in  building  strong  the  ramparts  of  constitutional  restraint 
against  such  radical  usurpations  as  is  proposed  to  be  inaugurated  by 
measures  kindred  to  this  before  the  House.  If  the  gentleman  can  show 
us  warrant  in  the  Constitution  to  establish  this  eleemosynary  system  for 
the  blacks,  and  for  making  the  Government  a  plantation  speculator  and 
overseer,  and  the  Treasury  a  fund  for  the  negro,  I  will  then  consider  the 
charitable  light  in  which  he  has  commended  his  bill  to  our  sympathies.  It 
does  not  follow  that  because  (as  General  Butler  once  said)  there  were  as 
many  poor  in  proportion  to  the  people  in  the  poorhouses  of  Massachusetts 
who  were  killed  outright  by  bad  treatment  as  were  killed  at  the  battle  of 
Solferino  in  proportion  (o  those  engaged,  that  we  are  to  interfere  by  Fed 
eral  legislation  for  the  victims  of  Massachusetts  inhumanity.  I  would 
love  to  do  something  for  the  poor  blacks  who  have  been  thrown  houseless, 


356  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

clothesless,  foodless,  medicineless,  and  friendless  on  the  cold  world  by  the 
improvident  and  barbarous  philanthropy  now  in  vogue ;  but  when  my 
constituents  ask  me  for  my  warrant  thus  to  tax  them,  I  wish  to  be  able  to 
point  it  out.  If  you  can  so  frame  your  bill  as  to  draw  no  money  from  the 
Treasury,  and  make  your  scheme  self-supporting  ;  or  if  you  can  so  perfect 
the  system  as  to  connect  it  legally  with  the  military  without  degrading  the 
army,  and  still  discipline  and  care  for  the  unfortunate  blacks,  male  and  fe 
male,  old  and  young,  strong  and  weak,  then  we  may  consider  its  propriety 
and  legality  with  a  view  to  aid  its  passage. 

We  cannot  and  do  not  desire  to  ignore  the  fact  that  incalculable  mis 
ery  has  been  and  will  be  the  fate  t)f  the  freed  negroes  ;  but  it  is  another 
mid  a  difficult  problem  to  reconcile  the  aid  they  require  from  the  benevolent 
Vith  our  oaths  and  well-matured  judgments  as  to  the  province  of  the 
Federal  Government  over  matters  like  this.  The  gentleman  refers  us  for 
the  constitutionality  of  this  measure  to  the  war  power,  the  same  power 
by  which  he  justifies  the  emancipation  proclamation  and  similar  measures. 
We  upon  this  side  are  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  utter  sophistry  of  such 
reasoning.  If  the  proclamation  be  unconstitutional,  how  can  this  or  any 
measure  based  on  it  be  valid?  The  gentleman  says,  "If  the  President 
had  the  power  to  free  the  slave,  does  it  not  imply  the  power  to  take  care 
of  him  when  freed  ?  "  Yes,  no  doubt.  If  he  had  any  power  under  the 
war  power,  he  has  all  power.  He  is  so  utterly  irresponsible  that  even 
Congress  cannot  share  his  monarchical  despotism.  Under  the  war  power 
he  is  a  tyrant  without  a  clinch  on  his  revolutions.  He  can  spin  in  any 
orbit  he  likes,  as  far  and  as  long  as  he  pleases.  He  refers  us  also  to  that 
clause  of  the  Constitution  which  authorizes  Congress  "  to  declare  war  and 
make  rules  concerning  captures  on  land."  This  latter  argument  squares 
with  the  theory  of  this  war  announced  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylva 
nia  [Mr.  STEVENS],  for  the  authority  of  Congress  to  declare  war  is  of 
course  only  meant  as  against  foreign  nations,  and  Congress  can  make  all 
rules  concerning  captures  in  such  a  war.  But  unless  the  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  are  ready  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  the  South, 
and  recognize  them  as  a  separate  nation  of  belligerents,  then  his  argument 
proves  nothing  in  behalf  of  this  bill,  except  that  he  is  a  theoretical  seces 
sionist.  The  constitutional  argument  in  favor  of  this  bill  is  one  that  this 
side  cannot  recognize,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  unsay  and  undo  all  that 
\ve  have  said  and  done  to  protect  the  Constitution  since  the  abolition 
measures  began  to  take  the  form  of  law.  ' 

"  But,"  it  is  urged,  "  something  must  be  done  for  the  poor  blacks. 
They  are  perishing  by  thousands.  We  must  look  the  great  fact  of  anti- 
slavery  and  its  millions  of  enfranchised  victims  in  the  face,  and  legislate 
for  their  relief."  Such  is  the  appeal  to  our  kindlier  natures.  Something 
should  be  done.  The  humanity  which  so  long  pitied  the  plumage  should 
not  forget  the  dying  bird.  But  what  can  be  done  without  violating  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  or  without  intrenching  upon  a  domain  never 
granted  by  the  States  or  the  people  in  their  written  charter  of  powers? 
What  can  be  done  ?  Oh  !  ye  honey-tongued  humanitarians  of  New  Eng 
land,  with  your  coffers  filled  from  the  rough  hand  of  Western  toil,  the 
beaded  sweat  of  whose  industry  by  the  subtle  alchemy  of  your  inventive 
genius  is  transmuted  into  the  jewels  of  your  parvenu  and  shoddy  splendor, 


CIVIL   WAR.  357 

with  your  dividends  rising  higher  and  higher  like  waves  under  this  storm 
of  war ;  I  would  beseech  you  to  go  into  the  camps  of  the  contrabands, 
as  the  gentleman  described  them,  who  are  starving  and  pining  for  their 
old  homes,  and  lift  them  out  of  the  mire  into  which  your  improvident  and 
premature  schemes  have  dragged  them,  pour  the  oil  of  healing  into  their 
wounds,  and  save  a  few  of  them  at  least  from  the  doom  of  extirpation. 
Here  is  a  fitting  and  legal  opportunity  for  the  exercise  of  a  gracious  hu 
manity.  I  rejoice  to  know  that  many  good  men,  even  from  New  England, 
have  embraced  it. 

But  the  gentleman  urges  this  legislation,  because,  if  it  be  not  passed, 
the  President's  proclamation  will  be  made  "  a  living  lie."  He  thinks  that 
"  neither  the  considerate  judgment  of  mankind  nor  the  gracious  favor  of 
God  can  be  invoked  upon  the  President's  act  of  freedom,  unless  the  law 
shall  protect  the  freedom  which  the  sword  has  declared."  Not  merely  has 
the  President's  proclamation  been  made  a  living  lie,  but  the  thousands  of 
corpses  daily  hurried  out  of  the  contraband  hovels  and  tents  along  the  Mis 
sissippi  prove  it  to  have  been  a  deadly  lie.  Neither  the  judgment  of  man 
nor  the  favor  of  God  can  be  invoked  without  mockery  upon  a  fanatical 
project  so  fraught  writh  misery  to  the  weak  and  with  wholesale  slaughter 
to  its  deluded  victims. 

But  we  are  warned  to  look  the  great  fact  in  the  face  that  millions  un 
fit  for  freedom  are  yet  to  become  free.  I  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  we 
cannot  change  the  fact  by  closing  our  eyes.  It  is  true.  The  revolution 
rolls  on.  No  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Democracy  to  achieve  a  peace 
through  conciliation  will  now  be  listened" to.  The  spirit  of  those  in  pow 
er  is  the  spirit  of  extermination.  The  war  with  its  revolutions  goes  on, 
and  slavery  as  a  political  if  not  as  a  social  institution  will  fall  under  its 
crushing  car.  It  may  be  that  all  of  the  four  million  slaves  will  be  thrown, 
like  the  one  hundred  thousand  already  freed,  upon  the  frigid  charities  of  the 
world.  But,  sir,  if  slavery  be  doomed,  so,  alas  !  is  the  slave.  No  scheme 
like  this  bill  can  save  him.  The  Indian  reserves,  treaties,  bounties,  and 
agencies  did  not  and  does  not  save  the  red  man.  No  Government  farm 
ing  system,  no  charitable  black  scheme,  can  wash  out  the  color  of  the 
negro,  change  his  inferior  nature,  or  save  him  from  his  inevitable  fate. 
The  irrepressible  conflict  is  not  between  slavery  and  freedom,  but  between 
black  and  white  ;  and  as  De  Tocqueville  prophesied,  the  black  will  perish. 
Do  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  rely  upon  the  new  system,  called  by  the 
transcendental  abolitionists  "  Miscegenation"  to  save  the  black?  This  is 
but  another  name  for  amalgamation ;  but  it  will  not  save  the  negro. 
True,  Wendell  Phillips  says  it  is  "  God's  own  method  of  crushing  out  the 
hatred  of  race,  and  of  civilizing  and  elevating  the  world ;  "  and  Theodore 
Tilton,  the  editor  of  the  u  Independent"  (a  paper  publishing  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  by  authority),  holds  that  hereafter  the  "  negro  will  lose 
his  typical  blackness  and  be  found  clad  in  white  men's  skins."  But,  sir, 
no  system  so  repugnant  to  the  nature  of  our  race — and  to  organize  which 
doubtless  the  next  Congress  of  Progressives,  and  perhaps  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  wrill  practically  provide — can  save  the  negro. 

Mr.  ELIOT.     I  have  no  doubt  that  my  friend  understands  all  about  it. 

Mr.  Cox.     I  understand  all  about  it,  for  I  have  the  doctrines  laid 


358  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

down  in  circulars,  pamphlets,  and  books  published  by  your  anti-slavery 
people.  But  it  was  not  my  intention  to  discuss  it  now  upon  this  bill. 

Mr.  PRICE.  If  all  the  blacks  are  crushed  out,  how  is  amalgamation 
to  ruin  the  country? 

Mr.  Cox.  They  will  all  run,  according  to  the  new  gospel  of  abolition, 
into  the  white  people,  on  that  side  of  the  House,  I  suppose.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ELIOT.     Is  that  what  the  gentleman  is  afraid  of  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  No,  sir,  for  I  do  not  believe  that  the  doctrine  of  miscege 
nation,  or  the  amalgamation  of  the  white  and  black,  now  strenuously 
urged  by  the  abolition  leaders,  will  save  the  negro.  It  will  destroy  him 
utterly.  The  physiologist  will  tell  the  gentleman  that  the  mulatto  does 
not  live  ;  he  does  not  recreate  his  kind ;  he  is  a  monster.  Such  hybrid 
races,  by  a  law  of  Providence,  scarcely  survive  beyond  one  generation.  I 
promise  the  gentleman,  at  some  future  and  appropriate  time,  when  better 
prepared  to  develop  that  idea  of  miscegenation  as  now  heralded  by  the 
Abolitionists,  who  are  in  the  van  of  the  Republican  movement — 

Mr.  ELIOT.     1  hope  that  the  gentleman  will  go  into  it. 

Mr.  Cox.  If  such  be  the  desire  of  the  gentleman  I  will  attempt  it, 
though  reluctantly ;  for  my  materials,  like  the  doctrine,  are  a  little 
"  mixed." 

Mr.  GRINNELL  rose. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  cannot  yield  to  the  gentleman.  I  want  none  of  his  im 
pertinences  in  my  speech.  The  other  day,  when  I  was  speaking,  he  in 
terrupted  me  with  them  without  my  consent.  I  do  not  recognize  him  as 
a  member  to  whom  I  owe  the  courtesy  of  my  attention.  But  since  I 
am  challenged  to  exhibit  this  doctrine  of  the  Abolitionists — called  after 
some  Latin  words — miscegenation — to  mingle  and  generate — I  call  your 
attention  first  to  a  circular  I  hold  in  my  hand.  It  was  circulated  at  the 
Cooper  Institute  the  other  night,  when  a  female  who,  in  the  presence  of 
the  President,  Vice-President,  and  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  your  associates 
in  this  Hall,  made  the  same  saucy  speech  for  abolition  which  she  ad 
dressed  to  the  people  of  New  York.  It  begins  with  the  following  signifi 
cant  quotation  from  Shakespeare : 

"  The  elements 

So  mixed  in  him  that  Nature  might  stand  up 
And  say  to  the  world,  '  This  was  a  man  ! '  "     [Laughter.] 

"  Miscegenation  ;  the  Theory  of  the  Blending  of  the  Races,  applied  to  the  American 
White  Man  and  Negro.  Among  the  subjects  treated  of  are : 

"  1.  The  Mixture  of  Caucasian  and  African  Blood  Essential  to  American  Progress. 
[Laughter.] 

"  2.  How  the  American  may  become  Comely.     [Laughter.] 

"  3.  The  Type  Man  a  Miscegen— The  Sphinx  Kiddle  Solved. 

"  4.  The  Irish  and  Negro  first  to  Commingle.     [Laughter.] 

"  6.  Heart  Histories  of  the  Daughters  of  the  South. 

"  6.  Miscegenetic  Ideal  of  Beauty  in  Woman. 

"  7.  The  Future— No  White— No  Black." 

If  gentlemen  doubt  the  authenticity  of  this  new  movement,  let  them  go 
to  the  office  of  publication,  113  Nassau  street,  New  York,  and  purchase. 
The  movement  is  an  advance  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  gentlemen  opposite, 
but  they  will  soon  work  up  to  it.  The  more  philosophical  and  apostolic 


CIVIL  WAB.  359 

of  the  abolition  fraternity  have  fully  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  this 
amalgamation  platform.  I  am  informed  that  the  doctrines  are  already 
indorsed  by  such  lights  as  Parker  Pillsbury,  Lucretia  Mott,  Albert  Bris 
bane,  William  Wells  Brown,  Dr.  McCune  Smith  (half  and  half — miscc- 
gen),  Angelina  Grimke,  Theodore  D.  Weld  and  wife,  and  others.  These 
whom  I  have  named  are  only  carrying  out,  with  more  audacity,  the  doc 
trines  of  those  who  are  now  honored  by  the  Republican  party.  I  select 
a  Southern  and  a  Northern  light.  Cassius  M.  Clay,  minister  to  Russia, 
has  said  that 

"  Our  Legislatures,  State  and  Federal,  should  raise  the  platform  upon  which  our  free 
colored  people  stand ;  they  should  give  to  them  full  political  rights  to  hold  office,  to  vote, 
to  sit  on  juries,  to  give  their  testimony,  and  to  make  no  distinction  between  them  and 
ourselves." 

Gen.  N.  P.  BANKS,  when  a  member  of  Congress,  gave  utterance  to 
the  following : 

"So  far  as  he  had  studied  the  subject  of  races,  he  had  adopted  the  idea  that  when 
there  is  a  weaker  race  in  existence  it  will  succumb  to,  and  be  absorbed  in,  the  stronger 
race.  This  was  the  universal  law  as  regarded  the  races  of  men  in  the  world.  In  regard 
to  the  question  whether  the  white  or  the  black  race  was  superior,  he  proposed  to  wait 
until  time  should  develop  whether  the  WHITE  RACE  SHOULD  ABSORB  THE  BLACK,  OR  THE 

BLACK   ABSORB   THE  WHITE." 

But  even  these  are  inferior  lights  compared  with  the  advanced  guard 
of  this  abolition  army.  When  I  name  Theodore  Tilton,  an  editor  of  the 
Government  paper  in  Brooklyn,  called  the  "  Independent ;  "  when  I  recall 
the  fact  that  the  polished  apostle  of  abolition,  Wendell  Phillips,  whose 
golden-lipped  eloquence  can  make  miscegenation  as  attractive  to  the  ear 
as  it  is  to  the  other  senses  ;  when  I  quote  from  the  New  York  "  Tribune," 
the  centre  and  circumference  of  the  abolition  movement,  and  Mrs.  Stowe, 
whose  writings  have  almost  redeemed  by  their  genius  the  hate  and  discord 
which  they  aided  to  create ;  when  I  shall  have  done  all  this,  I  am  sure 
the  Progressives  on  the  other  side  will  begin  to  prick  up  their  ears  and 
study  the  new  science  of  miscegenation  with  a  view  to  its  practical  realiza 
tion  by  a  bureau.  [Laughter.] 

First  hear  the  testimony  of  Wendell  Phillips.     He  says  : 

"Now,  I  am  going  to  say  something  that  I  know  will  make  the  New  York '  Herald '  use 
its  small  capitals  and  notes  of  admiration,  and  yet  no  well-informed  man  this  side  of  China 
but  believes  it  in  the  very  core  of  his  heart.  That  is,  '  amalgamation,'  a  word  that  the 
Northern  apologist  for  slavery  has  always  used  so  glibly,  but  which  you  never  heard  from 
a  Southerner.  Amalgamation !  Remember  this,  the  youngest  of  you,  that  on  the  4th 
day  of  July,  1863,  you  heard  a  man  say  that  in  the  light  of  all  history,  in  virtue  of  every 
page  he  ever  read,  he  was  an  amalgamationist  to  the  utmost  extent.  I  have  no  hope  for 
the  future,  as  this  country  has  no  past,  and  Europe  has  no  past,  but  in  that  sublime  min 
gling  of  races  which  is  God's  own  method  of  civilizing  and  elevating  the  world.  God,  by 
the  events  of  His  providence,  is  crushing  out  the  hatred  of  race  which  has  crippled  thia 
country  until  to-day." 

I  put  it  to  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  Are  you  responsible  for  him  ? 
Ah  !  you  received  him,  how  ardently,  in  this  city  and  Capitol  last  year. 

Mr.  ELIOT.     To  whom  does  the  gentleman  refer? 

Mr.  Cox.  Wendell  Phillips.  The  Senate  doors  flew  open  for  him  ;  the 
Vice-Preside nt  of  the  United  States  welcolmed  him  ;  Senators  flocked 
around  him  ;  Representatives  cheered  his  disunion  utterances  at  the  Smith- 


360  EIGHT   YEAE8   IN   CONGRESS. 

sonian ;  and  you  will  follow  him  wherever  he  leads.  He  is  a  practical 
araalgamatiouist,  and  he  is  leading  and  will  lead  you  up  to  the  platform 
on  which  you  will  finally  stand.  You  may  seem  coy  and  reluctant  now, 
but  so  you  were  about  the  political  equality  of  the  negro  a  year  ago ;  so 
you  were  about  abolishing  slavery  in  the  States  two  years  ago.  Now  you 
are  in  the  millennial  glory  of  abolition.  So  it  will  be  hereafter  with  amal 
gamation  !  Here  is  what  Theodore  Tilton,  editor  of  the  "  Independent," 
says  in  the  circular  to  which  I  have  referred : 

"  Have  you  not  seen  with  your  own  eyes — no  man  can  have  escaped  it — that  the  black 
race  in  this  country  is  losing  its  typical  blackne.-s  ?  The  Indian  is  dying  out ;  the  negro 
is  only  changing  color  !  Men  who,  by  and  by,  shall  ask  for  the  Indians,  will  be  pointed  to 
their  graves  :  '  There  lie  their  ashes  ! '  Men  who,  by  and  by,  shall  ask  for  the  negroes,  will 
be  told,  '  There  they  go,  clad  in  white  men's  skins.'  A  hundred  years  ago  a  mulatto  was 
a  curiosity ;  now  the  mulattocs  are  half  a  million.  You  can  yourself  predict  the  future  !" 

Mr.  ELIOT.  The  gentleman  will  permit  me  to  say,  that  surely  all  this 
was  under  a  state  of  slavery. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  will  show  the  gentleman  directly  that  his  friends  and 
leaders  propose  to  continue  it  in  a  state  of  freedom.  It  will  be  the  freest 
kind  of  license. 

•  Mr.  ELIOT.  The  gentleman  will  allow  me  to  suggest  whether  the  dif 
ficulty  he  labors  under  is  not  that  tjie  Democratic  party  is  afraid  the  Re 
publicans  will  get  ahead  of  them. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  not  afraid  of  any  thing  of  the  kind  while  white  people 
remain  upon  which  we  can  centre  our  affections  and  philanthropy.  You 
can  take  the  whole  monopoly  of  "  miscegenation."  We  abhor  and  detest 
it.  The  circular  referred  to  has  other  indorsements,  which  I  quote  before 
I  reach  that  Warwick  of  Republicanism,  Horace  Greeley.  The  "  Anti- 
Slavery  Standard  "  of  January  30  says  : 

"  This  pamphlet  comes  directly  and  fearlessly  to  the  advocacy  of  an  idea  of  which  the 
American  people  are  more  afraid  than  of  any  other.  Assuredly  God's  laws  will  fulfil  and 
vindicate  themselves.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  He  has  placed  a  natural 
repugnance  between  any  two  families  of  His  children.  If  He  has  done  so,  that  decree 
will  execute  itself,  and  these  two  will  never  seek  intimate  companionship  together.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  He  has  made  no  such  barrier,  no  such  one  is  needful  or  desirable,  and  every 
attempt  to  restrain  these  parties  from  exercising  their  natural  choice  is  in  contravention 
of  His  will,  and  is  an  unjust  exercise  of  power.  The  future  must  decide  how  far  black 
and  white  are  disposed  to  seek  each  other  in  marriage.  The  probability  is  that  there  will 
be  a  progressive  intermingling,  and  that  the  nation  will  be  benefited  by  it." 

I  hold  in  my  hand  the  "Anglo-African,"  of  January  23,  which  dis 
cusses  this  subject  from  the  purely  African  stand-point : 

"  The  author  of  the  pamphlet  before  us  advances  beyond  these  lights  of  the  days  gone 
by.  What  they  deemed  a  remote  and  undesirable  probability,  he  regards  as  a  present  and 
pressing  necessity ;  what  they  deemed  to  be  an  evil  to  be  legislated  against,  he  regards  a3 
a  blessing  which  should  be  hastened  by  all  the  legislative  and  political  organizations  in  the 
land !  The  word — nay,  the  deed — miscegenation,  the  same  in  substance  with  the  word 
amalgamation,  the  terror  of  our  abolition  friends  twenty  years  ago,  and  of  many  of  them 
to-day — miscegenation,  which  means  intermarriages  between  whites  and  blacks — '  misce 
genation,'  which  means  the  absolute  practical  brotherhood  or  social  intermingling  of  blacks 
and  whites,  he  would  have  inscribed  on  the  banner  of  the  Republican  party,  and  held  up 
as  the  watchword  of  the  next  Presidential  platform.  We  take  a  deep  interest  in  the  doc 
trine  shadowed  forth,  that  to  improve  a  given  race  of  men  it  is  too  late  to  begin  with 
infant  and  Sunday  schooling ;  at  birth  they  have  the  bent  of  their  parents,  which  we  may 
slightly  alter  but  cannot  radically  change.  The  education  and  improvement  should  begin 


CIVIL  WAE.  361 

with  the  marriage  of  parties  who,  instead  of  strong  resemblances,  should  have  contrasts 
which  are  complementary  each  of  the  other.  It  is  disgraceful  to  our  modern  civilization 
that  we  have  societies  for  improving  the  breed  of  sheep,  horses,  and  pigs,  while  the  human 
race  is  left  to  grow  up  without  scientific  culture." 

The  editor  of  the  "  Anglo- African"  confesses  that  he  is  a  little  staggered 
in  his  theories  by  what  he  calls  the  evident  deterioration  of  the  mixed 
bloods  of  Central  America,  but  he  finds  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  the 
fact  that  the  races  there  mixed,  Indian  and  Spanish,  are  not  complemen 
tary  of  each  other.  This,  to  my  observation,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  as  absurd 
as  it  is  untrue.  But  I  am  not  now  arguing  the  reasonableness  of  this  doc 
trine  of  mixed  races.  I  only  propose  to  show  what  it  is,  and  whither  it  is 
tending. 

The  New  York  "  Tribune,"  the  great  organ  of  the  dominant  party,  is  not 
so  frank  as  the  "  Anglo- African,"  but  its  exposition  of  k'  miscegenation  "  is 
one  of  the  signs  which  point  to  the  Republican  solution  of  our  African 
troubles  by  the  amalgamation  of  the  races.  In  indorsing  the  doc 
trine  of  the  pamphlet,  Mr.  Greeley  holds  that — 

"  No  statesman  in  his  senses  cares  to  put  morsels  of  cuticle  under  a  microscope  before 
he  determines  upon  the  prudence  of  a  particular  policy.  Diversity  of  race  is  the  condition 
precedent  in  America,  and  their  assimilation  is  the  problem.  High  skulls,  broad  skulls, 
long  skulls,  black  hair,  red  hair,  yellow  hair,  copper  skins  or  olive  skins,  Caucasians, 
Ethiopians,  Mongolians,  Americans,  Malays,  with  oval  pelvis,  round  pelvis,  square  pelvis, 
or  oblong  pelvis,  we  have  or  may  have  them  all  in  our  population  ;  and  our  business  is  to 
accommodate  all  by  subjecting  merely  material  differences  to  the  ameliorating  influence  of 
an  honest  and  unlimited  recognition  of  one  common  nature." 

To  "  assimilate  these  various  races  "  is  the  problem  which  Mr.  Greeley 
approaches.  We  cannot  but  admire  the  delicate  phraseology  in  which 
his  approaches  are  couched.  Not  so  the  pamphlet  to  which  I  referred. 
It  is  bold  and  outspoken.  It  advocates  a  preference  of  the  black  over  the 
white  as  partners.  The  following  are  the  points  inculcated  by  its  author  : 

"  1.  Since  the  whole  human  race  is  of  one  family,  there  should  be  in  a  republic  no  dis 
tinction  in  political  or  social  rights  on  account  of  color,  race,  or  nativity. 

"  2.  The  doctrine  of  human  brotherhood  implies  the  right  of  white  and  black  to  inter 
marry. 

"  3.  The  solution  of  the  negro  problem  will  not  be  reached  in  this  country  until  public 
opinion  sanctions  a  union  of  the  two  races. 

"  4.  As  the  negro  is  here,  and  cannot  be  driven  out,  there  should  be  no  impediment  to 
the  absorption  of  one  race  in  the  other. 

"  5.  Legitimate  unions  between  whites  and  blacks  could  not  possibly  have  any  worse 
effect  than  the  illegitimate  unions  which  have  been  going  on  more  than  a  century  at  the 
South. 

"  6.  The  mingling  of  diverse  races  is  proved  by  all  history  to  have  been  a  positive 
benefit  to  the  progeny. 

"  7.  The  Southern  rebellion  is  caused  less  by  slavery  than  by  the  base  prejudice  result 
ing  from  distinction  of  color  ;  and  perfect  peace  can  come  only  by  a  cessation  of  that  dis 
tinction  through  an  absorption  of  the  black  race  by  the  white. 

"  8.  It  is  the  duty  of  anti-slavery  men  everywhere  to  advocate  the  mingling  of  the  two 
races. 

"  9.  The  next  Presidential  election  should  secure  to  the  blacks  all  their  social  and  po 
litical  rights  ;  and  the  progressive  party  should  not  flinch  from  conclusions  fairly  deducible 
from  their  own  principles. 

"10.  In  the  millennial  future  the  highest  type  of  manhood  will  not  be  white  or  black, 
but  brown ;  and  the  union  of  black  with  white  in  marriage  will  help  the  human  family 
the  sooner  to  realize  its  great  destiny." 


362  EIGHT   TEAKS   EST   CONGRESS. 

The  author  finds  an  emblem  of  his  success  in  the  blending  of  many  to 
make  the  one  new  race,  in  the  crowning  of  the  dome  above  this  Capitol 
with  the  bronze  statue  of  Liberty  !  It  is  neither  black  nor  white,  but  the 
intermediate^niscegen,  typifying  the  exquisite  composite  race  which  is  to 
arise  out  of  this  war  for  abolition^  and  whose  destiny  it  is  to  rule  the  con 
tinent  !  Well  might  the  correspondent  of  the  New  York  u  Tribune,"  in  de 
scribing  the  lifting  of  the  uncouth  masses,  and  bolting  them  together  joint 
by  joint,  till  they  blended  into  the  majestic  "Freedom"  which  lifts  her 
head  in  the  blue  sky  above  us,  regard  the  scene  as  prophetic  of  the  time 
when  the  reconstructed  symbol  of  freedom  in  America  shall  be  a  colored 
goddess  of  liberty  !  But  to  the  pamphlet  itself.  Here  we  have  it.  This 
new  evangel  for  the  redemption  of  the  black  and  white,  upon  its  introduc 
tory  page  begins  as  follows  : 

"  The  word  is  spoken  at  last.  It  is  miscegenation — the  blending  of  the  various  races' 
of  men — the  practical  recognition  of  the  brotherhood  of  all  the  children  of  the  common 
Father."  [Laughter.] 

Just  what  our  miscegenetic  Chaplain  prays  for  here  almost  every 
morning ;  and  you  all  voted  for  him,  even  some  of  my  friends  from  the 
border  States.  The  "  Introduction  "  proceeds: 

"  While  the  sublime  inspiration  of  Christianity  has  taught  this  doctrine,  Christians 
so-called  have  ignored  it  in  denying  social  equality  to  the  colored  man ;  while  democracy 
is  founded  upon  the  idea  that  all  men  are  equal,  Democrats  have  shrunk  from  the  logic  of 
their  own  creed  and  refused  to  fraternize  with  the  people  of  all  nations ;  while  science  has 
demonstrated  that  the  intermarriage  of  diverse  races  is  indispensable  to  a  progressive  hu 
manity,  its  votaries,  in  this  country  at  least,  have  never  had  the  courage  to  apply  that  rule 
to  the  relations  of  the  white  and  colored  races.  But  Christianity,  democracy,  and  science 
are  stronger  than  the  timidity,  prejudice,  and  pride  of  short-sighted  men,  and  they  teach 
that  a  people,  to  become  great,  must  be  composite.  This  involves  what  is  vulgarly  known 
as  amalgamation"  [laughter],  "  and  those  who  dread  that  name,  and  the  thought  and 
fact  it  implies,  are  warned  against  reading  these  pages." 

There  are  some  remarkable  things  thrown  out  in  this  pamphlet,  which 
should  be  examined  by  gentlemen  upon  the  other  side.  The  author  dis 
cusses  the  effect  of  temperature  on  color.  Quoting  from  a  German  natu 
ralist,  he  holds — 

"  That  the  true  skin  is  perfectly  white  ;  that  over  it  is  placed  another  membrane,  called 
the  rcticular  tissue,  and  that  this  is  the  membrane  that  is  black ;  and,  finally,  that  it  is 
covered  by  a  third  membrane,  the  scarf  skin,  which  has  been  compared  to  a  line  varnish 
lightly  extended  over  the  colored  membrane,  and  designed  to  protect  it.  Examine  also 
this  piece  of  skin  belonging  to  a  very  fair  person.  You  perceive  over  the  true  white  skin 
a  membrane  of  a  slightly  brownish  tint,  and  over  that  again,  but  quite  distinct  from  it,  a 
transparent  membrane.  In  other  words,  it  clearly  appears  that  the  whites  and  the  cop 
per-colored  have  a  colored  membrane  which  is  placed  under  the  scarf  skin  and  immediately 
above  the  true  skin,  just  as  it  is  in  the  negro.  The  infant  negroes  are  born  white,  or  rather 
reddish,  like  those  of  other  people  "  [laughter],  *'  but  in  two  or  three  days  the  color  begins 
to  change  ;  they  speedily  become  copper-colored  "  [laughter],  "  and  by  the  seventh  or  eighth 
day,  though  never  exposed  to  the  sun,  they  appear  quite  black."  [Laughter.]  "  lie  men- 
tio'ns  that  it  is  known  that  negroes  in  some  instances  are  born  quite  white  or  are  true  Al 
binos  ;  sometimes,  after  being  black  for  many  years,  they  become  piebald,  or  wholly 
white,  without  their  general  health  suffering  under  the  change.  He  also  mentions  another 
metamorphosis,  which  would  not  be  agreeable  to  the  prejudices  of  many  among  us ;  it  is 
that  of  the  white  becoming  piebald  with  black  as  deep  as  ebony." 

That  is  an  argument  to  show  that  we  all,  black  and  white,  start  off  in 


CIVIL   WAK.  363 

the  race  of  life  nearly  of  the  same  color,  and  that  we  ought  to  come  to  it 
again  by  the  processes  of — miscegenation  ! 

The  author,  in  his  second  chapter,  devotes  many  pages  to  considering 
the  superiority  of  mixed  races.  Without  combating  his  facts  or  deduc 
tions,  let  me  quote  this  grand  conclusion  : 

"  Whatever  of  power  and  vitality  there  is  in  the  American  race  is  derived,  not  from  its 
Anglo-Saxon  progenitors,  but  from  all  the  different  nationalities  which  go  to  make  up  this 
people.  All  that  is  needed  to  make  us  the  finest  race  on  earth  is  to  ingraft  upon  our 
stock  the  negro  element  which  Providence  has  placed  by  our  side  on  this  continent." 
[Laughter.]  "  Of  all  the  rich  treasures  of  blood  vouchsafed  to  us,  that  of  the  negro  is 
the  most  precious  "  [laughter],  "  because  it  is  the  most  unlike  any  other  that  enters  into 
the  composition  of  our  national  life."  [Laughter.] 

"  It  is  clear  that  no  race  can  long  endure  without  a  commingling  of  its  blood  with  that 
of  other  races.  The  condition  of  all  human  progress  is  miscegenation."  [Laughter.] 
"  The  Anglo-Saxon  should  learn  this  in  time  for  his  own  salvation.  If  we  will  not  heed 
the  demands  of  justice,  let  us  at  least  respect  the  law  of  self-preservation.  Providence 
has  kindly  placed  on  the  American  soil,  for  His  own  wise  purposes,  four  million  colored 
people.  They  are  our  brothers,  our  sisters."  [Laughter.]  "  By  mingling  with  them  we 
become  powerful,  prosperous,  and  progressive ;  by  refusing  to  do  so  we  become  feeble, 
unhealthy,  narrow-minded,  unfit  for  the  nobler  offices  of  freedom,  and  certain  of  early 
decay."  [Laughter.] 

I  call  the  especial  attention  of  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
ELIOT]  to  these  points,  with  a  view  to  their  incorporation  in  his  bureau 
for  freedmen  and  freedwomen.  All  your  efforts  will  be  vain,  and  you  will 
not  be  able  to  maintain  a  healthy  vitality,  if  you  do  not  mix  your  whites 
very  freely  with  your  black  beneficiaries.  The  writer  gives  us  his  theory 
of  the  war.  Although  the  war  has  not  quite  reached  the  miscegeuetic 
point  yet,  it  progressses  visibly.  After  showing  how  other  wars  have 
blended  the  various  bloods  of  the  world,  he  says  : 

"  It  will  be  our  noble  prerogative  to  set  the  example  of  this  rich  blending  of  blood. 
It  is  idle  to  maintain  that  this  present  war  is  not  a  war  for  the  negro.  It  is  a  war  for  the 
negro.  Not  simply  for  his  personal  rights  or  his  physical  freedom ;  it  is  a  war,  if  you 
please,  of  amalgamation,  so  called — a  war  looking,  as  its  final  fruit,  to  the  blending  of  the 
white  and  black.  All  attempts  to  end  it  without  a  recognition  of  the  political,  civil,  and 
social  rights  of  the  negro  will  only  lead  to  still  bloodier  battles  in  the  future.  Let  us  be  wise 
and  look  to  the  end.  Let  the  war  go  on  until  the  pride  of  caste  is  done  away.  Let  it  go 
on  until  church,  and  State,  and  society  recognize  not  only  the  propriety  but  the  necessity 
of  the  fusion  of  the  white  and  black  "  [laughter]  ;  "  in  short,  until  the  great  truth  shall 
be  declared  in  our  public  documents  and  announced  in  the  messages  of  our  Presidents, 
that  it  is  desirable  the  white  man  should  marry  the  black  woman  and  the  white  woman 
the  black  man — that  the  race  should  become  melaleuketic  before  it  becomes  miscege- 
netic."  [Great  laughter.] 

This  is  the  language  of  scientific  progress,  soon  to  become  familiar  to 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  The  author  proceeds  : 

"  The  next  step  will  be  the  opening  of  California  to  the  teeming  millions  of  Eastern  Asia. 
The  patience,  the  industry,  the  ingenuity,  the  organizing  power,  the  skill  in  the  mechanic 
arts  which  characterize  the  Japanese  and  Chinese  must  be  transplanted  to  our  soil,  not 
merely  by  the  emigration  of  the  inhabitants  of  those  nations,  but  by  their  incorporation  with 
the  composite  race  which  will  hereafter  rule  this  continent.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  Indians  whom  we  have  displaced  were  copper-colored  ;  and  no  other  complexion,  phys 
iologists  affirm,  can  exist  permanently  in  America.  The  white  race  which  settled  in  New 
England  will  be  unable  to  maintain  its  vitality  as  a  blonde  people.  The  darker  shades  of 
color  live  and  thrive,  and  the  consumption  so  prevalent  in  our  Eastern  States  is  mainly 
confined  to  the  yellow-haired  and  thin-blooded  blondes." 

What  a  sad  picture  this  for  our  New  England  friends  !     Oh,  ye  yel- 


364:  EIGHT   YEARS   ES"   CONGRESS. 

low-Laired  and  thin-blooded  Yankees  !  Mingle  !  mingle  !  mingle  while 
ye  may  !  It  is  the  sure  cure  for  your  asthmas  and  consumptions.  Still 
speaking  of  these  thin-blooded  New  Englanders,  he  says  : 

"  They  need  the  intermingling  of  the  rich  tropic  temperament  of  the  negro  to  give 
warmth  and  fulness  to  their  natures."  [Laughter.]  "  They  feel  the  yearning,  and  do 
not  know  how  to  interpret  it."  [Laughter.]  "  The  physician  tells  them  they  must  travel 
to  a  warmer  climate.  They  recognize  in  this  a  glimpse  of  the  want  they  feel,  though  they 
are  hopeless  of  its  efficacy  to  fully  restore  the  lost  vitality.  Still  they  feel  the  nameless 
longing. 

"  '  Yet  waft  me  from  the  harbor  mouth, 
\  Wild  wind  !  I  seek  a  warmer  sky, 

And  I  will  see  before  I  die 
The  palms  and  temples  of  the  South.' 

"  It  is  only  by  the  infusion  into  their  very  system  of  the  vital  forces  of  a  tropic  race 
that  they  may  regain  health  and  strength.  We  must  accept  the  facts  of  nature.  We 
must  become  a  yellow-skinned,  black-haired  people — in  fine,  we  must  become  miscegens 
if  we  would  attain  the  fullest  results  of  civilization."  [Laughter.] 

This  enthusiastic  theorist  then  shows  that  all  religions  are  derived 
from  the  dark  races.  He  calls  to  us  from  the  tombs  of  Egypt,  and  solves 
the  Sphinx  riddle  of  our  national  destiny.  That  solution  is  this  :  that  "  if 
we  would  fill  our  proper  places  in  nature,  we  must  mingle  our  blood  with 
all  the  children  of  the  common  father  of  humanity."  Thus  and  thus  only 
can  we  hope  for  redemption  by  a  pure  religion.  The  cold  skepticism  of 
the  Caucasian  will  then  be  expunged  in  the  more  genial  faith  which  mis 
cegenation  will  produce.  Hear  him  : 

"  May  we  not  hope  that  in  the  happier  hereafter  of  this  continent,  when  the  Mongo 
lian  from  China  and  Japan,  and  the  negro  from  his  own  Africa,  shall  have  blent  their 
more  emotional  natures  with  ours,  that  here  may  be  witnessed  at  once  the  most  perfect 
religion  as  well  as  the  most  perfect  type  of  mankind  the  world  has  yet  seen  ?  Let  us 
then  embrace  our  black  brother"  [laughter] ;  "let  us  give  him  the  intellect,  the  energy, 
the  nervous  endurance  of  the  cold  North  which  he  needs,  and  let  us  take  from  him  his 
emotional  power,  his  love  of  the  spiritual,  his  delight  in  the  wonders  which  we  understand 
only  through  faith.  In  the  beautiful  words  of  Emerson : 

"  '  He  has  the  avenues  of  God 

Hid  from  man  of  northern  brain, 
Far  beholding,  without  cloud, 

What  these  with  slowest  steps  attain.' " 

The  writer  then  goes  on  to  show  what  this  miscegen  will  become  phys 
iologically.  He  will  be  the  realization  of  the  ideal,  not  of  the  white  or 
of  the  black  race,  but  the  perfect  ideal  of  the  blended  races  !  The  artist 
is  called  in  to  adorn  by  the  rarest  touches  of  the  facile  pencil  this  produc 
tion  of  advanced  abolitionism : 

"  The  ideal  or  type  of  man  of  the  future  will  blend  in  himself  all  that  is  passionate 
and  emotional  in  the  darker  races,  all  that  is  imaginative  and  spiritual  in  the  Asiatic  races, 
and  all  that  is  intellectual  and  perceptive  in  the  white  races.  He  will  also  be  composite 
as  regards  color.  The  purest  miscegen  will  be  brown,  with  reddish  cheeks,  curly  and 
waving  hair,  dark  eyes,  and  a  fulness  and  suppleness  of  form  not  now  dreamed  of  by 
any  individual  people.  Adam,  the  progenitor  of  the  race,  as  his  very  name  sigrifies,  was 
made  of  red  earth  ;  and,  like  the  inhabitants  of  Syria  and  Mesopotamia,  must  have  been 
of  a  tawny  or  yellow  color.  The  extreme  white  and  black  are  departures  from  the  original 
type.  The  Saviour  is  represented  very  falsely  in  paintings  as  being  light-haired  and  white- 
skinned,  when,  in  truth,  he  must  have  been  a  man  of  very  dark  complexion,  as  were  all 
the  Palestine  Jews.  Thev  were  a  tawny  or  yellow  race.  The  fact  has  been  noticed  that 


CIVIL   WAE.  365 

the  Amharic,  the  language  of  the  Abyssinian,  is  remarkably  analogous  to  the  Hebrew, 
rendering  it  probable  that  the  Jews  were  partly  of  Abyssinian  or  negro  origin." 

The  writer  makes  the  same  mistake  which  others  have  made  iu  con 
founding  the  Abyssinian  with  our  Congo  negro.  They  are  utterly  unlike 
in  form  and  feature,  as  well  as  in  mind  and  character.  The  author's  elo 
quence  is  better  than  his  science  ;  for  with  what  enthusiasm  does  he  close 
his  appeal  to  the  members  of  the  abolition  party : 

"  We  urge  upon  white  men  and  women  no  longer  to  glory  in  their  color  ;  it  is  no  evi 
dence  of  cultivation  or  of  purity  of  blood.  Adam  and  Christ,  the  type  men  of  the  world's 
great  eras,  were  red  or  yellow,  and  to  men  of  this  color,  above  all  others,  must  be  commu 
nicated  the  higher  inspirations  which  involve  great  spiritual  truths,  and  which  bring  indi 
viduals  of  the  human  family  into  direct  communion  with  supernatural  agencies." 

These  theories,  which  seem  so  novel  to  us,  have  been  a  part  of  the 
gospel  of  abolition  for  years.  The  celebrated  authoress  of  Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin  has  made  a  pen-portrait  of  a  miscegenetic  woman  and  man  in  her 
novel  called  Dred.  She  makes  them  the  central  figures  in  her  graphic 
scenes  of  Southern  life.  Harry,  the  quadroon  overseer,  and  Lisette,  his 
wife,  are  described  as  of  that  "  mixed  blood  which  seems  so  peculiarly  fit 
ted  to  appreciate  all  the  finer  aspects  of  conventional  life."  Harry's 
power  was  such,  owing  to  the  constitution  inherited  from  his  father,  tem 
pered  by  the  soft  and  genial  temperament  of  the  beautiful  Eboe  mulattress 
who  was  his  mother,  that,  through  fear  or  friendship,  upon  the  plantation 
there  was  universal  subordination  to  him.  Lisette  is  described  as  a  deli 
cate,  airy  little  creature,  formed  by  a  mixture  of  the  African  and  French 
blood,  producing  one  of  those  fanciful,  exotic  combinations  that  give  the 
same  impression  of  brilliancy  and  richness  that  one  receives  from  tropical 
insects  and  flowers  !  Her  eyes  have  the  hazy,  dreamy  languor  which  is 
so  characteristic  of  the  mixed  races.  With  such  sensuous  portraiture  as 
his  original,  the  author  I  am  considering  finds  all  the  characteristics  of 
perfect  ideal  beauty  in  the — negro  girl !  He  copies  them  with  fidelity,  if 
he  does  not  surpass  the  original.  I  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen  upon 
the  other  side  to  this  remarkable  picture,  for  they  will  find  its  living 
counterpart  only  in  the  crazed  brains  of  their  fanatic  supporters  : 

"  In  what  does  beauty  consist  ?  In  richness  and  brightness  of  color,  and  in  graceful 
ness  of  curve  and  outline.  What  does  the  Anglo-Saxon,  who  assumes  that  his  race  mo 
nopolizes  the  beauty  of  the  earth,  look  for  in  a  lovely  woman  ?  Her  cheeks  must  be 
rounded  and  have  a  tint  of  the  sun,  her  lips  must  be  pouting,  her  teeth  white  and  regu 
lar,  her  eyes  large  and  bright ;  her  hair  must  curl  about  her  head,  or  descend  in  crinkling 
•waves ;  she  must  be  merry,  gay,  full  of  poetry  and  sentiment,  fond  of  song,  childlike,  and 
artless.  But  all  these  characteristics  belong,  in  a  somewhat  exaggerated  degree,  to  the 
negro  girl.  What  color  is  beautiful  in  the  human  face  ?  It  is  the  blank  white.  In  paint 
ings,  the  artist  has  never  portrayed  so  perfect  a  woman  to  the  fancy  as  when,  choosing  his 
subject  from  some  other  than  the  Caucasian  race,  he  has  been  able  to  introduce  the  mar 
vellous  charm  of  the  combination  of  colors  in  her  face.  Not  alone  to  the  white  face,  even 
when  tinted  with  mantling  blood,  is  the  fascination  of  female  loveliness  imputed.  The 
author  in  .TV  state — and  the  same  experience  can  be  witnessed  to  by  thousands — that  the 
most  beautiful  girl  in  form,  feature,  and  every  attribute  of  feminine  loveliness  he  ever  saw 
was  a  mulatto.  By  crossing  and  improvement  of  different  varieties,  the  strawberry,  or 
other  garden  fruit,  is  brought  nearest  to  perfection,  in  sweetness,  size,  and  fruitfulness. 
This  was  a  ripe  and  complete  woman,  possessing  the  best  elements  of  two  sources  of  pa 
rentage.  Her  complexion  was  warm  and  dark,  and  golden  with  the  heat  of  tropical 
suns,  lips  full  and  luscious,  cheeks  perfectly  moulded  and  tinged  with  deep  crimson,  hair 
curling,  and 


366  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGEESS. 

"'Whose  glossy  black 
To  shame  might  bring 
The  plumage  of  the  raven's  wing.'  " 

This  pampleteer  is  a  thorough  philosopher.  He  holds  that  the  slave-  V 
holders  South  are  a  superior  race,  owing  to  their  intimate  communication 
from  birth  to  death  with  the  colored  race.  Their  emotional  power,  fervid 
oratory,  and  intensity  of  thought  and  will,  are  attributed  to  this  associ 
ation.  Their  ability  to  cope  with  the  North  in  battle  -is  found  to  consist 
in  the  fact  that  the  presence  of  Africans  in  their  midst  in  large  numbers 
infuses  into  the  air  a  sort  of  barbaric  malaria ;  a  miasm  of  fierceness, 
which  after  long  intercourse  between  the  races  comes  to  infect  the  white 
men  and  even  the  women  also  !  I  would  fail  in  my  promise  to  elucidate 
this  new  creed  of  abolition,  did  I  not  call  attention  to  the  argument  which 
the  writer  draws  from  the  fact  that  contraries  like  each  other,  and  that  the 
blonde  incontinently  falls  in  love  with  the  black  !  From  this  principle  of 
a3Sthetics  or  lust  the  author  deduces  his  highest  type  of  beauty.  From 
this  source  of  opposite  yet  mingling  emotions  he  thinks  that  civilization 
will  be  enhanced  and  glorified !  I  give  his  deductions  as  well  for  their 
novelty  as  for  his  felicity  in  choosing  the  names  by  wrhich  he  illustrates 
them.  Let  me  again  quote  ; 

"Such  of  our  readers  as  have  attended  anti-slavery  meetings  will  have  observed  the 
large  proportion  of  blondes  in  the  assemblage.  This  peculiarity  is  also  noticeable  in  the 
leading  speakers  and  agitators  in  the  great  anti-slavery  party.  Mr.  Horace  Greeley,  of  the 
New  York  '  Tribune,'  known  for  his  devotion  to  the  negro  race,  is  as  opposite  as  a  man  pos 
sibly  can  be  to  the  people  to  whom  he  has  shown  his  attachment  by  long  and  earnest  labor 
for  their  welfare.  In  color,  complexion,  structure,  mental  habits,  peculiarities  of  all  kinds, 
they  are  as  far  apart  as  the  poles.  The  same  is  true  of  Mr.  Wendell  Phillips.  He,  too,  is 
the  very  opposite  of  the  negro.  His  complexion  is  reddish  and  sanguine ;  his  hair,  in 
younger  days,  was  light ;  he  is,  in  short,  one  of  the  sharpest  possible  contrasts  to  the 
pure  negro.  Mr.  Theodore  Tilton,  the  eloquent  young  editor  of  the  '  Independent,'  who  has 
alveady  achieved  immortality  by  advocating  enthusiastically  the  doctrine  of  miscegena 
tion"  [laughter],  "  is  a  very  pure  specimen  of  the  blonde,  and  when  a  young  man  was 
noted  for  his  angelic  type  of  feature"  [laughter] — "  we  mean  angelic  after  the  type  of 
Raphael,  which  is  not  the  true  angelic  feature,  because  the  perfect  type  of  the  future  will 
be  that  of  the  blended  race,  with  the  sunny  hues  of  the  South  tinging  the  colorless  com 
plexion  of  the  icy  North.  But  it  is  needless  further  to  particularize.  The  sympathy  Mr. 
Greeley,  Mr.  Phillips,  and  Mr.  Tilton  feel  for  the  negro  is  the  love  which  the  blonde  bear 
for  the  black :  it  is  a  love  of  race,  a  sympathy  stronger  to  them  than  the  love  they  bear 
to  woman.  It  is  founded  upon  natural  law.  We  love  our  opposites.  Nor  is  it  alone  true 
that  the  blonde  love  the  black.  The  black  also  love  their  opposites.  Said  Frederick 
Douglass,  a  noble  specimen  of  the  melaleuketic  American"  [laughter],  "  in  one  of  his 
speeches  :  '  We  love  the  white  man,  and  will  remain  with  him.  We  like  him  too  well  to 
leave  him,  but  we  must  possess  with  him  the  rights  of  freedom.'  Our  police  courts  give 
painful  evidence  that  the  passion  of  the  colored  race  for  the  white  is  often  so  uncontrolla 
ble  as  to  overcome  the  terror  of  the  law.  It  has  been  so,  too,  upon  the  Southern  planta 
tions.  The  only  remedy  for  this  is  legitimate  melaleuketic  marriage."  [Laughter.] 

The  revelations  at  Hilton  Head  and  along  the  Carolina  coast  might 
have  been  added  to  the  illustrations  above  to  show  the  irrepressible  affec 
tion  between  white  women  and  black  men  and  black  women  and  white 
men.  But  on  that — I  forbear. 

Sir,  I  cannot  pursue  this  style  of  remark  further.  The  contemplation 
of  such  disgusting  theories  is  not  pleasant.  I  have  been  challenged  to  go 
into  it  by  my  friend  from  Masaachusetts.  This  is  my  apology.  The 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  may  be  unconscious  of  the  path  they  are  trav- 


CIVIL   WAR.  367 

elling  under  the  lead  of  these  amalgamationists.  But  they  must  follow. 
They  may  protest,  but  we  know  that  they  will  yield,  for  they  have  ever 
yielded  to  their  extreme  men.  As  this  very  writer  himself  truly  says  (p. 

58): 

• 

"  As  the  war  has  progressed,  men's  minds  have  been  opened  more  and  more  to  the 
true  cause  of  our  country's  difficulties.  Human  nature  is  imperfect ;  it  can  ordinarily 
take  in  only  half  or  quarter  truths.  It  was  a  great  step  in  the  advance  when  the  country 
willingly  accepted  the  truth  that  all  men  should  be  free.  But  it  might  not  have  been  seen 
by  many  that  further  along  in  the  path  of  progress  we  should  recognize  the  great  doctrine 
of  human  brotherhood,  and  that  human  brotherhood  comprehended  not  merely  the  per 
sonal  freedom,  but  the  acknowledgment  of  the  political  and  social  rights  of  the  negro, 
and  the  provision  for  his  entrance  into  those  family  relations  which  form  the  dearest  and 
strongest  ties  that  bind  humanity  together.  Once  place  the  races  upon  a  footing  of  per 
fect  equality,  and  these  results  will  surely  follow. 

"  Let  it  be  understood,  then,  that  equality  before  the  law,  for  the  negro,  secures  to 
him  freedom,  privilege  to  secure  property  and  public  position,  and,  above  all,  carries  with 
it  the  ultimate  fusion  of  the  negro  and  white  races.  When  this  shall  be  accomplished  by 
the  inevitable  influences  of  time,  all  the  troubles  that  loom  up  now  in  the  future  of  our 
country  will  have  passed  away.  It  is  the  true  solution  of  our  difficulties,  and  he  is  blind 
who  does  not  see  it.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  fortunately  for  the  country,  has 
made  a  great  advance  in  the  right  direction.  His  first  thought  in  connection  with  the 
enfranchisement  of  the  slaves  was  to  send  them  from  the  country.  He  discovered,  first, 
that  this  was  physically  impossible,  and,  second,  that  the  labor  alone  which  would  be  lost 
to  America  and  the  world  would  amount  in  value  to  more  than  the  debts  of  all  the  na 
tions  of  the  earth.  The  negro  is  rooted  on  this  continent ;  we  cannot  remove  him  ;  we 
must  not  hold  him  in  bondage.  The  wisest  course  is  to  give  him  his  rights,  and  let  him 
alone ;  and  by  the  certain  influence  of  our  institutions  he  will  become  a  component  ele 
ment  of  the  American  man." 

Gentlemen  of  the  other  side  have  here  laid  down  for  them  the  shining 
pathway  that  will  lead  them  out  of  the  troubles  with  which  their  ill-judged 
emancipation  schemes  have  environed  them.  Whether  they  will  follow 
it,  time  will  show.  Events  will  show  whether  the  American  people  will 
not  have  a  thorough  and  honest  white  man's  disgust  for  all  these  African 
policies,  culminating,  as  they  must,  in  amalgamation,  so  as  in  time  to  re 
verse  the  wheel  of  revolution,  and  thus  save  both  races — the  one  from  con 
tinued  slaughter,  and  the  other  from  eventual  and  certain  extermination. 
I  have  quoted  these  extracts  to  show  that  there  is  a  doctrine  now  being 
advertised  and  urged  by  the  leading  lights  of  the  Abolition  party,  toward 
which  the  Republican  party  will  and  must  advance.  See  how  they  have 
advanced  for  the  last  two  or  three  years  !  They  used  to  deny,  whenever 
it  was  charged,  that  they  favored  black  citizenship  ;  yet  now  they  are 
favoring  free  black  suffrage  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  will  favor  it 
wherever  in  the  South  they  need  it  for  their  purposes.  The  Attorney- 
General  of  the  United  States  has  declared  the  African  to  be  an  American 
citizen.  The  Secretary  of  State  grants  him  a  passport  as  such.  The 
President  of  the  United  States  calls  him  an  American  citizen  of  African 
descent.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  discussing  African  equality 
in  street  cars.  We  have  the  negro  at  every  moment  and  in  every  bill  in 
Congress.  All  these  things,  in  connection  with  the  African  policies  of 
confiscation  and  emancipation  in  their  various  shapes  for  the  past  three 
years,  culminating  in  this  grand  plunder  scheme  of  a  department  for  freed- 
men,  ought  to  convince  us  that  that  party  is  moving  steadily  forward  to 


368  EIGHT  TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

perfect  social  equality  of  black  and  white,  and  can  only  end  in  this  detest 
able  doctrine  of — Miscegenation  ! 

Gentlemen  may  deny  that  this  is  the  tendency  of  their  party.  They 
used  to  deny  that  they  favored  the  doctrine  of  the  political  equality  of 
black  and  white,  which  was  once  charged  upon  them,  and  which  they  are 
now  so  boldly  consummating.  The  truth  will  appear.  After  a  year  or 
two  some  member  from  New  England  will  come  here  recognizing  the 
great  fact  that  four  million  blacks  are  mixing  more  or  less,  and  ought  to 
mix  more,  with  the  whites  of  the  country,  and  will  advocate  a  bureau  of 
another  kind — a  department  for  the  hybrids  who  are  cast  upon  the  care 
of  the  Government  by  this  system  of  miscegenation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  since  I  have  been  upon  the  floor,  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  more  than  hinted  that  the  Democracy  might  desire  to  com 
pete  with  his  party  in  this  new  scheme  of  miscegenation.  Not  at  all,  sir. 
Our  prejudices  are  strong,  but  they  are  in  favor  of  our  own  color.  We 
have,  in  times  past,  affiliated  with  the  Democracy  South,  but  I  do  not 
understand  that  the  Democratic  party  North  is  responsible  for  what  the 
Democratic  party  South  did  since  or  when  they  separated  from  us,  or 
since  and  when  they  divided  our  party  and  helped  you  to  divide  the  Union. 
The  Democratic  party  of  the  North  never  was  a  pro-slavery  party,  as  has 
been  libellously  charged.  [Laughter  on  the  Republican  side.]  Oh,  I 
know  you  laugh,  gentlemen,  at  that ;  but  your  laugh  is  "  like  the  crack 
ling  of  thorns  under  a  pot."  The  Scripture  tells  you  what  kind  of  laugh 
ter  that  is.  It  would  be  unparliamentary  to  characterize  it  further.  I 
repeat  it,  the  Democracy  North  never  was  a  pro-slavery  party.  I  know 
the  contrary  has  been  reiterated  by  the  crew  who  have  floated  on  the  sum 
mer  current  of  Northern  prejudice,  until  many  good  people  believe  it.  A 
grosser  falsehood  was  never  uttered.  Even  Horace  Greeley  is  ashamed 
any  more  to  repeat  it.  He  stated  the  other  day  our  position  correctly, 
when  he  said  that  "  northern  Democracy  is  not  really  pro-slavery,  but 
anti-intervention ;  maintaining,  not  that  slavery  is  right,  but  that  we  of 
the  free  States  should  mind  our  own  business  and  let  alone  other  people's." 
Our  platforms  are  but  the  repetition  of  this  idea  of  non-interference.  Be 
ginning  with  1840  and  ending  with  1860,  we  resolved — 

"  That  Congress  has  no  power,  under  the  Constitution,  to  interfere  with  or  control  the 
domestic  institutions  of  the  several  States  ;  and  that  such  States  are  the  sole  and  proper 
judges  of  every  thing  pertaining  to  their  own  affairs,  not  prohibited  by  the  Constitution; 
that  all  efforts  by  abolitionists  or  others  made  to  induce  Congress  to  interfere  with  ques 
tions  of  slavery,  or  to  take  incipient  steps  in  relation  thereto,  are  calculated  to  lead  to 
the  most  alarming  and  dangerous  consequences,  and  that  all  such  efforts  have  an  inevita 
ble  tendency  to  diminish  the  happiness  of  the  people,  and  endanger  the  stability  and 
permanency  of  the  Union,  and  ought  not  to  be  countenanced  by  any  friend  to  our  politi 
cal  institutions." 

The  Democracy  ever  favored  local  sovereignty  as  to  slavery  and  every 
other  domestic  matter.  They  would  have  extended  that  sovereignty,  and 
not  slavery,  from  the  States  to  the  Territories.  On  that  question  of  ex 
tension,  of  non-intervention,  the  Democracy  North  and  South  unhappily 
divided.  The  consequences  are  upon  us. 

I  accept  events  as  they  transpire.  Not  responsible  for  them,  yet  not 
unobservant  of  them,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  bold  strides 


CIVIL   WAR.  369 

which  have  been  made  since  we  last  met,  by  fraud  and  force,  to  crush  out 
the  institution  of  slavery.  I  need  not  point  you  to  the  black  recruiting 
system  in  Maryland  and  Missouri.  I  need  not  rehearse  the  orders  of  gen 
erals  and  subordinates,  all  working  to  this  end,  regardless  of  the  rights 
of  property  or  local  sovereignty.  Slavery  hangs  precariously  by  a  hair, 
in  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Maryland,  Missouri,  and  Florida. 
Even  in  old  Kentucky,  where  her  loyal  people  cared  less  for  it  and  more 
for  their  State  right  over  it,  anti-slavery  is  at  work.  Wherever  in  our 
lines  slavery  yet  exists,  it  is  comparatively  free  and  altogether  profitless. 
It  works  at  its  own  will,  and  not  at  the  will  of  the  master.  Outside  of 
our  lines — within  the  Gulf  States — slaves  once  worth  $2,000  are  now 
only  worth  their  $100  in  gold ;  and  this  depreciation  will  go  on  if  our 
armies  continue  to  penetrate  the  South.  If  it  thus  go  on,  where  will  it 
end  ?  In  the  grave  of  the  slave  !  Read  the  accounts  of  mortality  among 
the  blacks,  especially  those  in  the  military.  Each  camp  is  a  hospital. 
The  deserted  families  perish  by  their  removal  from  their  homes,  by  vice 
and  starvation.  We  of  this  side  have  no  power  to  stop  it.  The  war 
keeps  it  going.  For  this  condition  of  the  negro  let  the  Abolition  party 
and  its  savage  counterpart  South  answer  to  God  and  the  country.  To 
the  horrors  and  calamities  of  the  whites  growing  out  of  this  war  are  to  be 
added  the  miseries  and  destruction  of  the  blacks  ;  and  this  indictment  of 
high  crime  will  not  be  found  against  the  northern  Democracy,  but  against 
its  revilers  North,  who  divided  our  Union,  and  its  enemies  South,  who 
divided  our  party. 

In  the  forthcoming  election  for  Chief  Magistrate  you  will  find  the 
Democracy  making  no  issue  about  slavery.  If  it  is  dying  or  dead,  as  you 
allege,  you  will  find  them  striving  their  utmost  to  preserve  what  they  can 
of  local  and  personal  liberty  out  of  the  chaos  of  this  conflict.  We  have 
been  the  champions  of  local  and  State  liberty,  not  because  slavery  was 
guaranteed  by  it.  No,  sir.  We  have  not  championed  slavery.  We  never 
placed  it  in  our  northern  constitutions.  I  would  fain  have  seen  slavery 
die,  if  die  it  must,  by  the  unforced  action  of  the  States,  as  it  has  died  in 
the  now  free  States,  and  not  by  the  rough  usages  of  war,  which  destroys 
the  slave  with  slavery ;  not  by  usurpations  upon  the  rights  of  the  States 
and  the  people,  which  destroy  both  freedom  and  slavery  and  slave,  but  by 
the  sovereign  intelligence  of  the  people  of  the  States,  who  alone  are  responsi 
ble  for  the  existence  of  their  own  domestic  institutions.  I  am  not  insensible 
to  the  signs  of  the  times.  Judging  by  what  we  daily  see  here  in  this  House, 
the  border  States,  through  the  blandishments  of  power,  the  fear  of  ruin,  the 
tyranny  of  the  bayonet,  and  the  corruption  of  greenbacks,  are,  I  think,  grad 
ually  being  persuaded  to  yield  before  the  genius  of  universal  emancipation  ! 
The  music  of  the  old  Union  is  hushed  in  the  bugles  of  war.  The  northern 
Democracy,  in  struggling  to  preserve  the  institutions  of  those  States,  and 
in  doing  which  they  have  been  and  are  yet  in  sympathy  with  their  only 
proper  representatives,  have  done  so  from  no  love  of  slavery  ;  but  because, 
in  the  language  of  the  Chicago  platform,  they  would,  by  preserving  State 
institutions,  "•  preserve  the  balance  of  power,  on  which  the  perfection  and 
endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depended."  When  the  party  in  power, 
by  edict  and  bayonet,  by  sham  election  and  juggling  proclamation,  drag 
down  slavery,  they  drag  down  in  the  spirit  of  ruthless  iconoclasm  the  very 


370  EIGHT   YEARS   IN    CONGRESS. 

genius  of  our  civil  polity,  local  self-government.  They  strike  constitutional 
liberty  in  striking  at  domestic  slavery.  Hence  they  must  abolish  habeas 
corpus  when  they  stab  the  hated  institution.  They  must  invade  bills  of 
right  when  they  invade  State  rights.  When  next  you  meet  us  at  the  polls 
you  shall  answer  for  the  perfection  of  our  political  fabric  which  you  have 
marred,  and  the  endurance  of  which  you  have  imperilled.  No  more 
wrangling  about  pro-slavery  or  anti-slavery.  The  question  shall  be,  the 
old  order  with  Democracy  to  administer  it,  or  continued  revolution  with 
destructives  to  guide  it ;  the  old  Union  with  as  much  of  local  sovereignty 
as  may  be  saved  from  the  abrasion  of  war,  or  a  new  abolition  and  mili 
tary  unity  of  territory,  with  debt,  tyranny,  and  fanaticism  as  its  trinity. 


HISTORIC  LESSONS  FOR  CIVIL  WAR. 

THE  NATION'S  HOPE — AMNESTY — SOUTHERN  UNIONISTS — PLAN  OP  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE 

BILLS  OF  RECONSTRUCTION ONE-TENTH  PLAN — THE  OATH PRESIDENTIAL  CHARACTERISTICS 

VITALITY  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENTS RECONSTRUCTION CIVIL  WARS  OF  GREECE,  ROME, 

FRANCE,  AND  ENGLAND,  HOW  RECONCILED — VICTORY  WITHOUT  REPRISALS. 

"  We  know  of  no  great  revolution  which  might  not  have  been  prevented  by  com 
promise  early  and  graciously  made.  Firmness  is  a  great  virtue  in  public  affairs,  but  it 
has  its  proper  sphere.  Conspiracies  and  insurrections  in  which  small  minorities  are  en 
gaged,  the  outbreakings  of  popular  violence  unconnected  with  any  extensive  project  or 
any  durable  principle,  are  best  repressed  by  vigor  and  decision.  To  shrink  from  them  is 
to  make  them  formidable.  But  no  wise  ruler  will  confound  the  pervading  taint  with  the 
slight  local  isolation.  The  neglect  of  this  distinction  has  been  fatal  even  to  governments 
Btrong  in  the  power  of  the  sword." — Macaulay. 

The  bill  of  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis,  "to  guarantee  to  certain 
States,  whose  governments  are  usurped  or  overthrown,  a  Republican  form 
of  government,"  presented  an  opportunity  to  discuss  the  problenis  of  re 
construction. 

Mr.  Cox,  on  the  4th  day  of  May,  1864,  delivered  the  speech  which 
follows.  Mr.  Davis  answered  the  argument  against  the  one-tenth  policy 
in  the  suffrage  of  the  new  States,  by  abandoning  it,  and  substituting  the 
majority. 

Mr.  Cox  said :  Mr.  Speaker,  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  is 
for  peace  and  union  to  this  distracted  land.  While  urging  undimiuished 
and  increased  exertions  by  our  army  and  navy  to  secure  union,  I  have  been 
ever  ready  to  heal  the  wrounds  and  check  the  ravages  of  war  by  all  rational 
methods  used  among  civilized  nations.  To  those  who  can  entertain  but  one 
idea  at  a  time,  this  position  has  seemed  inconsistent ;  but  to  those  who  have 
read  history,  it  will  appear  that  war  is  made  for  peace,  and  that  to  con 
summate  peace  in  the  midst  of  war,  and  to  restore  harmony  in  civil  or 
international  conflict,  negotiation  and  friendliness  are  indispensable. 

During  the  long  and  anxious  years  I  have  served  here — from  almost 
a  youth  to  almost  middle  age — I  have  never  failed  to  warn  against  the 


CIVIL   WAK. 

great  crisis  of  force  which  came  in  1861.  These  auguries  have  been  un 
happily  too  fully  fulfilled.  What  could  be  done  by  an  humble  represen 
tative  to  avert  this  strife,  that  I  did.  My  constituents  know  this  ;  and  I 
might  be  content  to  leave  this  arena,  conscious  of  their  approbation  for 
duty  done.  Since  this  war  began  I  have  sought,  but  found  no  place  for 
compromise  in  the  dominant  party.  Hence  I  have  mournfully,  though 
constantly  by  vote  and  voice,  upheld  the  sword,  lest  even  a  worse  alter 
native — eternal  separation  and  prolonged  strife — should  be  our  fate.  The 
miseries  which  this  war  has  entailed,  have  not  been  the  work  of  the  North 
ern  Democracy ;  and  if  disunion  comes  through  the  open  doors  of  Janus 
— if  recognition  of  Southern  independence  comes  through  war  or  its  dis 
asters — the  Democracy  are  not  responsible  for  the  odium,  and  with  my 
word  and  aid  shall  never  be  held  responsible.  Those  who  are  swift  to 
recognize  Southern  independence  may  do  so  ;  but  by  all  the  memories  of 
our  conflicts  with  secession  and  abolition,  I  will  never,  never,  be  counted 
among  those  who  have  aided  in  the  dismemberment  of  the  Republic. 
Would  that  I  could  see  in  our  present  policy  a  gleam  of  hope  for  our  fu 
ture.  How  gladly  would  I  hail  it !  But  until  that  policy  is  reversed,  all 
our  future  is  shrouded.  Like  my  distinguished  friend  from  Indiana  [Mr. 
VOORHEES],  whose  dirge-like  speech  still  haunts  my  memory,  I  see  in  the 
continuance  of  the  present  misrule  only  the  throes  of  this  nation,  writh 
ing  in  the  despair  of  dissolution.  The  bloody  sweat,  the  feverish  pulse, 
the  delirious  raving,  and  the  muscular  agony,  go  before  that  prostration, 
which  "  Death  the  Skeleton  and  Time  the  Shadow  "  have  consummated 
for  all  republics,  which  have  in  evil  hours  yielded  the  sceptre  of  the 
people  to  the  grasp  of  Passion  and  the  greed  of  Power.  The  eloquent 
requiem  which  my  friend  pronounced,  sounding  like  the  wail  of  the  be 
reaved  among  the  tombs  of  the  dead,  should,  if  heeded,  teach  us,  before 
too  late,  how  beyond  all  price  is  the  boon  which  is  passing  from  us  for 
ever.  He  finds  hope  in  autumn,  for  the  spring  will  bring  its  bloom  ;  hope 
in  the  storm,  for  the  cloud  will  pass  and  the  sun  shine  again  ;  but  no  hope 
in  the  grave  of  our  Republic — none,  none  for  our  dying  Republic.  Mr. 
Speaker,  sadly  as  his  thoughts  have  impressed  me,  I  can  yet  see  some 
hope  for  our  Nation  ;  for  I  believe  in  the  immortality  of  civilization  and 
the  grace  of  the  Christian  religion.  While  to  him  the  future  is  black 
with  a  pall,  I  look  beyond  his  prospect  of  the  hearse  and  the  tomb — the 
mourners  and  the  darkened  window — to  the  resurrection  !  The  grave 
shall  lose  its  sting,  and  death  its  victory.  The  mourner  shall  be  com 
forted.  The  light  of  a  better  dawn  shall  enter  into  the  darkened  chamber. 
I  too  go  to  Holy  Writ  as  he  did,  but  I  go  for  the  purpose  of  cheer  and  not 
of  despondency ;  for  I  read  there  that  "  Good  tidings  shall  bind  up  the 
broken-hearted,  and  to  them  that  mourn  in  Zion,  give  unto  them  beauty  for 
ashes,  the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  and  the  garment  of  praise  for  the  spirit 
of  heaviness.  *  *  And  they  shall  build  the  old  wastes,  they  shall  raise 
up  the  former  desolations,  *  *  *  as  the  earth  bring eth  forth  her  bud, 
and  the  garden  causeth  things  that  are  sown  in  it  to  spring  forth."  "  Go 
through,  go  through  the  gates,  prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  People  ;  cast  up,  cast 
up  the  highway  ;  lift  up  a  standard  for  the  PEOPLE  !  "  Sir,  that  .standard 
for  the  people  shall  be  high  advanced !  My  friend  himself  will  bear  it  to 
the  West.  In  the  honest  yeomanry  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  and  in  the 


372  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

eternal  principles  of  constitutional  Democracy  and  regulated  freedom,  do 
I  read  a  more  cheering  horoscope  !  I  will  not,  do  not,  and  cannot  de 
spair.  I  would  rather  die  in  my  simple  faith  in  popular  intelligence  and 
republican  institutions,  than  yield  my  heart  to  the  sadness  which  freights 
each  passing  hour  with  its  gloom.  There  is  one  hope  left.  If  the  bayonet 
shall  be  unfixed  at  our  polls,  if  no  persuasive  appliances  of  money  shall 
attaint  an  honest  election,  I  do  not  despair  of  a  verdict  in  favor  of  that 
party  whose  principles  I  have  loved  for  their  national  history  and  unsec- 
tional  spirit.  Fond  as  I  am  of  historic  research,  I  cannot  follow  my 
friend  in  mourning  over  the  dust  of  departed  empire.  I  read  in  the  de 
cline  and  fall  of  republican  governments  lessons  of  wisdom  and  hope  for  our 
own  guidance.  In  the  remarks  which  I  shall  submit,  I  propose  to  show 
from  history  how  statesmanship  has  saved  the  fallen  columns  of  constitu 
tional  liberty,  how  the  victories  of  war  have  been  crowned  by  the  more 
renowned,  important,  and  difficult  victories  of  peace,  and  how  allegiance 
has  been  rekindled  by  the  sweet  breath  of  kindness  fanning  the  almost 
dying  embers  of  patriotism.  This  may  seem  like  a  thankless  and  useless 
task,  in  view  of  the  convulsions  and  prejudices  of  the  hour  ;  but  the  issue 
demands  such  an  exposition.  That  issue  is — shall  freedom,  peace,  and 
union  be  restored  by  a  change  of  rulers  and  policy,  or  shall  we  set  aside 
the  teachings  of  the  past,  and  permit  the  work  of  disintegration  and  ruin 
to  go  on? 

The  Executive  has  proposed  an  amnesty.  I  would  not  turn  away 
from  its  contemplation.  As  each  day  may  offer  the  chance  of  concilia 
tion,  I  welcome  any  sign  of  peace,  though  the  bow  of  promise  be  dim  and 
unsubstantial,  and  though  it  be  wreathed  over  the  very  cataract  of  our 
national  doom  !  The  message  of  the  President  should  be  welcomed,  not 
so  much  for  what  it  is,  as  for  what  it  pretends  to  be.  It  is  his  first  ad 
venture  beyond  the  line  of  force  into  the  field  of  conciliation.  As  his 
former  policy  showed  a  will  to  change  and  crush  civil  relations  by  the 
iron  hand,  so  the  present  policy  is  but  its  continuance ;  for  he  only  draws 
over  the  mailed  hand  a  silken,  though  transparent  glove.  His  plan  is  the 
will  of  the  commander,  while  pretending  to  be  the  wisdom  of  the  civilian. 
The  war  power,  as  illustrated  by  the  administration,  has  no  more  founda 
tion  in  our  Government  than  this  peace  power,  assuming  to  pardon  crime 
without  conviction,  and  revivify  dead  States  which  are  indestructible. 
But  duty  demands  a  thorough  sifting  of  this  pretentious  amnesty.  The 
Democratic  party  have  worn  the  stigma,  as  it  has  been  deemed,  of  leaning 
too  much  toward  conciliation.  Our  gravest  fault  has  been  that  we  are 
suspected  somewhat  of  having  read  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  that 
we  have  believed  in  the  gentleness  and  effectiveness  of  our  religion.  Even 
such  Democrats  as  have  favored  the  superaddition  of  clemency  to  the 
enginery  of  war  as  a  means  of  reunion  have  been  ostracized,  while  those 
who  have  found  no  elements  of  union  save  in  affection,  without  coercion, 
have  been  imprisoned  and  exiled.  It  would  be  ungracious  in  us,  there 
fore,  to  dismiss  even  this  semblance  of  pacification  without  examination. 
Let  us  examine  it  in  the  light  of  history.  If  it  be  right,  it  shall  not  be 
rejected  because  it  comes  from  a  President  not  in  our  favor.  If  it  sound 
hollow — if  it  be  the  Trojan  horse,  full  of  armed  men,  ready  to  surprise 


CIVIL   WAR.  373 

the  citadel  of  our  Constitution,  let  us  drag  its  insidious  features  to  the 
light  for  condemnation. 

To  test  the  genuineness  of  this  amnesty :  Five  months  have  gone,  but 
we  see  no  signs  of  thousands  of  southern  citizens  rushing  to  embrace  this 
amnesty.  Indeed,  it  is  conceded  that  the  rebellion  is  now  more  formi 
dable  than  ever.  Unlike  the  acts  of  grace  granted  by  kings  to  their  recu 
sant  subjects,  of  which  history  is  full,  there  is  no  general  taking  of  the 
oath,  no  genuine  movement  toward  the  restoration  of  the  seceded  States, 
but  a  fiercer  spirit  of  resistance,  produced  by  the  unwise  and  exasperating 
policy  of  the  Executive.  The  President's  plan  has  been  widely  published 
in  the  papers  South,  as  the  "  Richmond  Sentinel"  says,  to  "  animate  their 
popular  patriotism."  The  forgiveness  offered  by  the  President  is  deemed 
a  mockery  and  its  terms  an  insult.  What  a  delusion  to  hold  out  such  a 
Dead  Sea  apple — ashes  to  the  lip,  and  hardly  fruit  to  the  eye.  How  many 
people  in  the  North  would  take  an  oath  to  support  those  negro  policies  of 
the  past  two  years !  I  never,  never  would.  I  would  as  soon  think  of 
swearing  allegiance  to  secession.  I  would  as  soon  tie  my  soul  to  the  body 
of  death.  And  can  you  expect  the  southern  people  in  their  present  tem 
per,  saddened  by  loss^  and  irate  with  revenge,  to  do  what  our  constituents — 
one  million  and  a  half  of  northern  voters — would  scorn  us  for  doing? 
There  could  have  been  no  hope  of  a  returning  South  by  such  a  plan."  It 
is  an  amnesty  which  is  a  juggle,  for  it  pleases  no  one  who  is  to  be  reached. 
It  is  based  on  a  proclamation  which  is  a  delusion,  for  no  one  was  freed 
by  it  whom  our  armies  had  not  enfranchised.  It  is  the  old  unsoundness, 
newly  daul>ed  with  untempered  mortar.  There  is  one  chief  defect  in  the 
President's  plan.  It  is  the  structure  built  upon  his  proclamation  of  eman 
cipation.  The  same  defect  is  observable  in  the  bill  of  the  gentleman 
from  Maryland  [Mr.  DAVIS].  That  too  is  based  on  the  one-tenth  system 
and  the  policy  of  forced  emancipation.  He  proposes  to  "  guarantee  to 
certain  States,  whose  governments  have  been  usurped  or  overthrown,  a 
republican  form  of  government."  This  is  the  title  of  his  bill.  I  deny, 
first,  that  these  State  governments  are  overthrown  ;  and  second,  that  his  plan 
substitutes  a  republican  form.  His  plan  is  to  appoint  provisional  briga 
dier  governors,  who  are  to  be  charged  with  the  civil  administration  until  a 
State  Government  shall  be  recognized  as  his  bill  provides.  He  requires 
an  oath  to  the  Constitution  to  be  taken,  which  is  very  well ;  but  by  whom? 
By  one-tenth  of  the  people.  They  shall  be  sufficient  to  construct  the  new 
State,  whose  republican  form  of  government  is  already  dictated  to  them 
by  the  bill  of  the  gentleman  from  Maryland.  They  "  shall "  abolish 
slavery.  Then  the  other  steps  are  to  be  taken,  and  the  new  republican 
State  is  to  be  recognized.  In  some  of  its  features  this  bill  is  an  improve 
ment  upon  the  rickety  establishment  proposed  by  the  President ;  but  it  is 
obnoxious  to  the  same  objection.  It  is  a  usurpation  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  by  the  Federal  functionaries,  and  it  regards  the  old  States  as 
forever  destroyed.  The  plans  proposed  are  objectionable,  because  of  the 
mode  of  construction  and  the  kind  of  fabric  to  be  rebuilt.  As  the  eman 
cipation  proclamation,  or  the  emancipation  act  of  the  gentleman,  can  never 
be  reconciled  with  the  normal  control  of  the  States  over  their  domestic  in 
stitutions,  so  all  oaths  to  sustain  the  same  are  oaths  to  subvert  the  old 
governments,  Federal  and  State.  The  oath  required,  both  of  loyal  and 


374  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   COXGRESS. 

disloyal  men  in  the  South,  is  an  oath  of  infidelity  to  the  very  genius  of 
our  federative  system,  for  it  is  an  oath  to  aid  anarchy,  and  out  of  anarchy 
create  a  "  new  nation  !  "  It  receives  no  countenance  from  those  who  are 
wedded  to  the  Constitution  as  it  is  and  the  States  as  they  were ;  but  it 
lifts  the  hand  to  God  in  attestation  of  a  design  to  subvert  both !  The 
President's  plan,  therefore,  whether  intended  or  not,  is  an  oath  to  en 
courage  treason,  and  the  plan  of  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  is  a  plan 
to  consummate  revolution. 

By  no  state  of  war,  by  no  act  of  secession,  by  no  military  power,  by 
no  possible  or  actual  condition,  can  this  change  in  our  policy  be  allowed 
without  a  total  subversion  of  our  government,  and  without  breaking  down 
the  principle  of  permanence  and  reinstating  a  new  and  worse  revolution. 
Who  is  there  to  deny  the  "  normal  supremacy  of  the  States  over  their 
domestic  affairs  "  ?  Is  it  the  jurist?  I  refer  him  to  repeated  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  of  every  other  respectable  authority  in  the  juris 
prudence  of  America.  Is  it  the  historian  ?  I  refer  him  to  the  debates 
of  the  Constitutional  Convention  and  the  history  of  our  States,  both  the 
original  thirteen  and  those  afterwards  admitted.  Is  it  the  diplomatist?  I 
refer  him  to  Mr.  Seward's  despatch,  wherein  he  says : 

"  The  rights  of  the  States  and  the  condition  of  every  human  being  in  them  will  re 
main  precisely  the  same,  whether  the  revolution  shall  succeed  or  whether  it  shall  fail.  In 
one  case  the  States  would  be  federally  connected  with  the  new  Confederacy ;  in  the  other, 
they  would,  as  now,  be  members  of  the  United  States  ;  but  their  constitution*  and  laws, 
customs,  habits,  and  institutions,  in  either  case  will  remain  the  same.'1'1 

Is  it  an  old-line  Whig  ?  I  refer  him  to  Henry  Clay,  who  held  that  to 
break  down  the  incontestable  power  of  the  State  over  its  own  institutions 
was  to  break  down  both  Federal  and  State  constitutions,  and,  beneath 
their  ruin,  to  bury  forever  the  liberty  of  both  white  and  black  races.  Is 
it  a  Democrat  ?  Read  your  platforms  for  thirty  years,  and  learn  again  the 
language  of  Jefferson  and  Madison,  and  the  practical  teachings  of  Douglas 
in  his  great  contest  for  extending  popular  sovereignty  over  domestic  mat 
ters  from  the  States  to  the  territories.  Is  it  a  Republican?  I  refer  him 
to  the  Chicago  platform,  which  resolves  that  "  the  maintenance  inviolate 
of  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  the  rights  of  each  State  to  order 
and  control  its  own  domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judgment 
exclusively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which  the  perfection 
and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depends."  Is  it  the  members  of  the 
last  Congress  ?  I  refer  them  to  the  Crittenden  resolution,  as  to  the  rights, 
dignity,  and  equality  of  the  States.  Is  it  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  exponent 
of  the  will  of  this  body?  I  refer  you  to  the  resolution  you  voted  :  "  That 
neither  the  Federal  Government  nor  the  people,  nor  the  governments  of 
non-slaveholding  States,  have  a  purpose  or  a  constitutional  right  to  legis 
late  upon  or  interfere  with  slavery  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union." 
Is  it  the  President  himself  ?  Oh  !  shameful  treachery  !  Shame  to  him 
self  and  treachery  to  the  trusting  !  Shall  I  recall  his  repeated  sayings  by 
proclamation,  calling  on  soldiers  to  peril  their  lives,  or  by  message,  giving 
us  his  solemn  convictions  of  duty  ?  Shall  I  refer  to  his  message  wherein 
he  repudiated  the  idea  of  disturbing  the  system  of  slavery,  as  foreign  to 
his  inclination  and  his  duty,  or  to  his  direction  to  Mr.  Seward  to  inform 
foreign  powers  that  any  effort  to  disturb  that  system  "  on  his  part  would  be 


CIVIL   WAB.  375 

unconstitutional "  ?  Is  it  the  philosophic  thinker  ?  I  refer  him  to  the  ex 
positions  of  M.  Do  Tocqueville  (vol.  i.,  p.  69),  who,  better  than  any  one 
abroad,  has  examined  the  complex  nature  of  our  Government,  beginning 
with  the  township  and  rising  through  many  grades  to  the  Federal  author 
ity,  and  who  found  here  "  two  governments,  completely  separate  and 
almost  independent — the  one  fulfilling  the  ordinary  duties  and  responding 
to  the  daily  and  indefinite  calls  of  a  community,  the  other  circumscribed 
within  certain  limits,  and  only  exercising  an  exceptional  authority  over 
the  general  interest  of  the  country ." 

These  expressions  were  made  in  view  of  or  in  time  of  war.  The  in 
dependent  spheres  of  National  and  State  Governments  were  ever  regarded, 
in  words,  if  not  in  acts,  by  the  very  party  in  power ;  and  now  their  test 
of  loyalty  is  an  oath  to  forswear  their  own  oaths  !  Now  their  touchstone 
of  patriotism  is — an  oath  to  commit  political  turpitude !  And  this  is 
called  an  amnesty  !  This  oath,  which  is  to  be  taken  at  once  by  loyal  and 
disloyal  men,  is  to  be  the  sweet  oblivious  balm  over  past  crime  by  a  clem 
ent  Executive !  This  battering  down  of  the  Constitution  is  to  be  the 
Aladdin  witchery,  which  in  a  night  is  to  reconstruct  a  "perpetual  cosmos 
of  beauty  and  power,  out  of  the  chaos  of  civil  conflict."  Because  we  do 
not  shout  hosannahs  to  this  new  cosmos,  Democrats  are  reproached  as 
favoring  slavery.  No,  sir.  We  do  not  like  slavery.  For  one,  I  say  again 
as  I  have  said  before,  let  it  die,  if  die  it  must,  not  by  the  rough  usages 
of  war,  not  by  the  starvation,  miscegenation,  or  extirpation  of  the  black 
race,  not  by  the  strangulation  of  State  and  popular  sovereignty ;  but  by 
the  voluntary  and  legal  action  of  the  States,  when  they  are  in  a  condition 
freely  to  express  their  choice.  .  Why  use  the  sentiment  against  slavery  to 
crush  out  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  Government?  Why,  in 
striving  to  destroy  slavery,  drag  down  the  pillars  of  the  Constitution? 
When  to  kill  slavery  you  destroy  the  "balance  of  powers  on  which 
the  perfection  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depends,"  I  must  and 
will  denounce  you.  How  many  expressions  from  the  other  side  of  the 
chamber  have  I  been  called  upon  to  denounce,  because  they  urge  the 
abandonment  of  our  old  and  rare  political  fabric.  These  expressions  are 
all  impearled  by  an  exquisite  thinker  of  the  radical  school — Senator  Gratz 
Brown — when  he  says  : 

u  Who  cares  for  the  Union  of  the  past — a  Union  fraught  with  seeds  of  destruction — 
bitter  with  humiliations  and  disappointments  ?  Who  believes  in  the  grief  of  these  hired 
mourners,  so  lachrymose  before  the  world  ?  They  are  not  even  self-deceived.  It  is  like 
wise  with  reconstructions — a  freemasonry  that  imagines  it  has  only  blocks  and  stones  to 
deal  with,  or  a  child's  play,  that  would  build  up  as  they  have  tumbled  down  its  card-cas 
tles,  putting  affably  the  court  cards  on  top  again.  Foolish  craftsmen,  seeing  not  that  it 
is  the  life  arteries  and  the  thews  and  the  sinews  of  a  nation's  being  that  are  dealt  with, 
and  that  it  must  be  regeneration  or  death." 

The  Union  thus  dismissed  with  so  much  scorn,  is  the  same  Union 
which  Lord  Brougham  called  (Political  Philosophy,  Part  III.,  page  336) 
"  the  very  greatest  refinement  in  social  policy,  to  which  any  state  of  circum 
stances  had  ever  given  rise,  or  to  which  any  age  has  ever  given  birth  " — 
which  deserved  his  eulogy,  because,  as  he  held,  there  was  in  it  the  means 
for  keeping  its  integrity  as  a  federacy,  by  the  maintenance  of  the  rights 
and  powers  of  the  individual  States.  The  Union  "  as  it  should  be  " — the 


376  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

Union  of  the  "  wise  craftsmen"  of  to-day  and  not  of  the  foolish  fathers 
who  made  it — is  not  the  Union  I  have  learned  to  admire  and  loved  to 
cherish  ;  not  the  Union  which,  for  the  past  seven  years,  I  have  pleaded  here 
to  maintain  without  blood  and  perpetuate  without  peril. 

These  plans  of.  regeneration  involve  a  change  in  the  structure  of  the 
Government.  They  break  down  the  spirit  of  municipal  independence,  in 
destroying  which,  as  De  Tocqueville  has  shown,  you  destroy  the  spirit  of 
liberty.  No  matter  what  form  is  left,  the  despotic  tendency  will  inevi 
tably  appear,  when  the  local  authority  is  usurped.  If  you  leave  any  form 
of  Government,  it  is  the  will  of  the  Executive,  it  is  a  despotic  centraliza 
tion — Russian,  Asiatic,  the  rule  of  military  bashaws,  or  provincial  king 
lets.  Whether  appointed  by  Congress  or  the  President,  they  hold  their 
power  from  Washington,  and  they  must  remain  at  the  head  of  their  troops, 
and  at  the  call  of  their  chief.  Our  Republic  then  deserves  not  its  name. 
It  is  no  longer  the  "  United  States."  It  is  a  United  State,  a  geographical 
unit,  holding  together  subject  provinces  by  the  brute  force  of  petty  tyrants. 

Believing  that  the  scope  and  aim  of  the  proclamation  will  not  restore 
the  Union,  nor  propitiate  any  portion  of  the  South,  except  demagogues 
and  hirelings,  who  sell  their  birthright  for  the  price  of  power,  let  us  inquire 
what  motive  could  have  induced  the  President  to  proclaim  it,  in  a  moment 
of  success  to  our  arms  'and  depression  to  the  South.  One  suggestion  will 
satisfy  as  to  the  motive.  I  am  sorry  to  believe  it ;  but  the  President  de 
sires  renomination.  He  is  a  man  whose  mind  has  every  angle  but  the 
right  angle.  In  his  nature,  cunning  contends  with  fanaticism.  From 
the  time  he  developed  his  irrepressible  conflict  doctrine,  so  much  praised 
by  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  ARNOLD],  until  its  latest  expression 
in  his  last  message,  his  course  has  been  equivocal.  But  meanwhile  how 
shrewdly  he  has  balanced  between  the  factions  of  his  party.  His  inau 
gural  recognized  his  obligations  to  the  Constitution.  He  would  not  inter 
fere  with  slavery.  How  prodigal  were  his  promises  to  the  Border.  How 
quick  to  plant  his  foot  on  Phelps,  Hunter,  and  Fremont  for  playing  Au- 
gustulus.  He  desired  some  day  to  play  Augustus.  Abolitionism  should 
be  hatched  under  no  influences  but  his  own.  How  he  lectured  one  of  his 
editors  for  impatience.  Conservatives  held  up  his  hands,  while  he  pre 
vailed  against  these  Radicals.  He  toyed  with  emigration,  colonization, 
and  compensation  schemes.  He  made  a  gradual  emancipation  theory 
with  a  short  fuse  which  soon  exploded.  It  hurt  no  one.  But  the  time 
came  for  him  to  play  revolutionist ;  and  with  seeming  reluctance,  he  is 
sued  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation.  He  desired  the  people  to  pass 
on  it.  They  did.  They  condemned  it  in  1862.  He  adhered  to  it.  In 
his  Springfield  letter,  and  in  his  late  message,  he  dedicates  all  power  to  its 
execution.  Meanwhile,  a  contest  springs  up  as  to  the  State  suicide  doc 
trine.  It  divides  his  party,  and  even  the  Cabinet.  He  has  Missouri  on 
his  hands.  Radicals  are  rampant.  He  acts  Conservative  awhile,  until 
the  days  of  November,  1864,  begin  to  approach  ;  then,  lo  !  this  message 
as  the  climax  of  his  long  series  of  ambiguities.  That  I  may  do  the  Pres 
ident  no  injustice,  I  quote  from  his  own  partisan,  Senator  POMEROY  in 
his  circular,  who  says  :  u  The  people  have  lost  all  confidence  in  Mr.  Lin 
coln's  ability  to  suppress  the  rebellion  and  restore  the  Union.  He  has 
been  weak  and  vacillating,  wasteful  of  national  blood  and  treasure,  profli- 


CIVIL   WAR.  377 

gate  and  corrupt."  There  is  only  one  solution  for  these  inconsistencies. 
He  is  trying  to  please  both  wings  of  his  party,  to  secure  his  nomination. 
With  dexterous  chicanery  he  has  phrased  and  framed  his  late  plan,  so  that 
it  may  admit  of  two  voices.  He  will  not  give  up  his  Emancipation  Pro 
clamation  or  the  confiscation  and  penal  laws.  u  To  abandon  them  now," 
he  says,  "  would  be  not  only  to  relinquish  a  lever  of  power,  but  would 
also  be  cruel  and  an  astounding  breach  of  faith."  This  should  suit  the 
Radicals.  For  a  lighter  shade  of  his  party  he  promises  what  is  a  mere 
delusion — an  adjudication  of  the  question  of  their  legality  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  True,  he  has  declared  all  means  like  these  which  he  now  pro- 
mulges,  unconstitutional ;  yet  he  would  submit  them  to  the  Court !  When 
and  how  ?  Why,  after  he  has  made  the  slave  a  freedman  by  the  sword  ! 
What  a  mockery  is  such  a  submission.  But  it  will  do  to  make  him  a 
candidate ;  and  more  than  that,  it  might  elect  him  President.  If  his 
plan  of  making  one-tenth  rule  in  the  States  should  succeed,  then  he  will 
have  ready  at  hand  the  electoral  votes  of  Florida,  Arkansas,  Louisiana, 
Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  and  other  States.  He  began  this  business  in 
Florida  the  other  day,  and  the  blood  which  flowed  at  Olustee  is  the  result 
of  this  scheme  of  personal  ambition. 

Nine  States,  without  South  Carolina,  representing  679,310  voters  in 
1860,  will  now,  by  this  peculiar  republican  form  of  reconstruction,  cast 
electoral  votes  for  the  67,931,  who,  as  one-tenth,  are  to  be  registered. 
How  many  of  these  will  be  stipendiaries,  or  how  many  bond  fide  citi 
zens  of  the  States?  But,  surely,  a  candidate  with  so  fair  a  chance  for  a 
gigantic,  almost  a  continental  fraud  as  this,  must  commend  himself  to  a 
party,  whose  use  of  power  has  made  a  debt  of  two  billions  and  an  expendi 
ture  equal  to  the  expenditure  of  all  former  administrations.  Hence,  when 
this  amnesty  to  rebels  wras  announced,  it  was  regarded  as  a  political 
movement  only,  and  the  excitement  did  not  equal  that  of  a  prize  fight. 
No  one  was  affected  by  it.  No  opponent  was  changed  to,  and  no  friend 
alienated  from  the  Administration,  either  North  or  South.  If  it  had  been 
an  act  of  good  faith  and  not  a  partisan  manoeuvre,  it  ought  to  have  bound 
closer  to  the  Administration  every  friend,  and  challenged  the  admiration 
of  every  opponent.  The  bells  should  have  been  rung,  the  bonfires  blazed, 
and  huzzas  have  rent  the  air,  as  the  throb  of  hope  pulsated  through  the 
fevered  veins  of  our  nation.  No  such  thing.  It  was  nothing  but  a  bold 
attempt  to  perpetuate  power,  at  the  hazard  of  revolutionary  war  in  the 
North  and  protracted  war  in  the  South.  For  as  surely  as  the  great  States 
of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Northwest  are  over 
borne  by  the  coalition  of  these  bastard  States  and  rotten  boroughs  South, 
with  New  England  abolition,  so  surely  will  the  tocsin  of  inevitable  neces 
sity  sound  the  alarm  of  resistance  throughout  the  land.  The  people  may 
sleep  now,  drugged  by  the  opiate  of  temporary  prosperity,  but  the  excite 
ment  of  the  Presidential  election  will  stir  to  its  very  depth  the  popular 
disaffection,  and  in  wild  saturnalia  the  vessel  of  our  hopes  may  founder 
forever  in  a  sea  of  blood. 

The  pretence  of  the  President  is  to  reconstruct  the  Union.  Where  did 
he  get  his  authority  to  build  anew  what  we  can  never  agree  has  been 
destroyed  ?  Is  it  a  part  of  the  war  power,  or  the  pardoning  power  ?  It  is 
the  "  best  mode  the  Executive  can  suggest,  with  his  present  impressions." 


378  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

Will  any  one  point  out  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  would  even 
create  an  "  impression  "  that  the  Executive  has  the  function  either  of  Su 
preme  Lawgiver,  State  Constructor,  or  Supreme  Dictator !  His  meek 
ness  in  referring  to  Congress  and  the  Judiciary  the  legality  of  his  acts, 
after  they  are  accomplished,  is  a  piece  of  effrontery  to  which  Louis  Napo 
leon  has  not  yet  arrived.  Where  did  this  unfledged  Ca3sar  get  his  war 
rant  to  create  sovereignty? 

In  discussing  this  plan,  it  would  be  sufficient,  without  questioning  the 
right  of  the  President  to  construct  States  on  condition  or  pardon  on  terms, 
simply  to  discuss  whether  the  conditions  and  terms  are  wise,  practical, 
and  likely  to  do  good.  But  I  propose  somewhat  in  detail  to  discuss  the 
President's  plan,  in  the  following  order  : 

1st,  the  oath  ;  2d,  the  republican  form  of  the  government  to  be  recon 
structed  ;  3d,  the  question  whether  the  State  governments  in  the  rebel 
States  are  vital ;  4th,  some  wise  and  practical  plan  such  as  will  aid  in  re 
storing  the  Union  under  the  Constitution. 

I.  The  oath. — There  is  a  sort  of  odium  historicum  attached  to  all  polit 
ical  test  oaths.  They  are  not  original  with  the  President.  They  have 
been  the  bane  and  foil  of  good  government  ever  since  bigotry  began  and 
revenge  ruled.  You  cannot  make  eight  millions  of  people,  nearly  all  in 
revolt  at  what  they  regard  as  the  detestable  usurpations  of  abolition,  for 
swear  their  hatred  to  abolition.  You  force  by  this  oath  the  freed  negro 
into  the  very  nostrils  of  the  Southern  man,  whose  submission  to  law  you 
seek.  The  conditions  of  the  pardon  only  inflame  and  do  not  quench  re 
bellion.  The  rebellion  was  in  such  a  state  AVhen  the  amnesty  was  offered, 
that -it  was  a  golden  opportunity  for  magnanimous  statesmanship  to  prof 
fer  generous  terms.  An  amnesty  based  on  another  kind  of  oath  (if  oaths 
you  would  have  that  Heaven  would  not  record  as  perjury)  might  avail. 
I  mean  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof!  But  what  does  this  amnesty  in  fact  say? 
To  all  citizens  South,  whether  loyal  or  disloyal,  it  proclaims  that  one- 
tenth  of  the  voters  of  1861,  and  "  excluding  all  others,  shall  reestablish  a 
State  government,  which  shall  be  republican  and  in  no  wise  contravening 
said  oath ;  "  that  such  establishment  "  shall  be  recognized  as  the  true 
government  of  the  State,"  which  is  to  be  considered  republican  in  form 
under  the  Constitution. 

The  abolition  oath  is  the  basis  of  the  new  republican  form  of  govern 
ment.  All  who  do  not  agree  to  that  are  excluded.  All  who  do  not  agree 
to  the  pestilent  theory  of  State  death  are  also  excluded.  Hence,  this  plan 
would  allow  any  recent  rebel  who  takes  the  oath  to  make  a  unit  in  the 
one-tenth,  and  excludes  the  Union  man  who  has  not  forsworn  his  faith  in 
the  vitality  of  the  States,  and  who  will  not  swear  to  support  policies  and 
laws  to  which  he  can  never  adhere.  What  becomes  of  the  many  thousand 
loyal  men  of  Tennessee,  of  Texas,  of  North  Carolina,  of  Arkansas,  of 
Louisiana?  They  are  set  aside  for  those  whose  oaths  will  bind  them  long 
enough  to  vote,  and  who,  to  save  their  lives  and  property,  will  swear  with 
facility.  The  oath  is  tendered  to  men  of  patriotic  probity,  who  will  and 
ought  to  spurn  the  test  oath  of  the  traitor.  Going  upon  the  doctrine  that 
all  the  rebellious  districts  are  unsound — assuming  the  ground  that  the  ter 
ritory  South  being  belligerent  outlaws  all,  whether  loyal  or  not — the 


CIVIL   WAR.  379 

President  applies  this  bitter  cup  to  the  Union  men  who  have  never  flinched 
in  their  love  for  the  flag.  The  men  who  have  stood  the  brunt  of  this  red 
tempest,  whose  homes  have  been  blackened  by  fire  and  whose  families 
have  been  destroyed  by  the  sword  ;  whose  ties  of  natural  affection  toward 
brothers  and  sons  in  the  rebel  army  never  made  them  swerve  in  their 
patriotic  devotion ;  who  have  even  withstood  the  fear  of  death  and  de 
struction,  and  in  spite  of  the  treachery  and  unkindness  of  this  Administra 
tion  have  kept  the  standard  of  stars  high  advanced  amid  swamps  and 
caves  and  mountains — these  men  must  quaff  the  cup  of  bitter  waters 
before  they  can  stand  before  the  world  as  the  builders  of  the  new  temple 
proposed  by  the  President !  If  they  were  worthy  of  association  in  this 
great  cohort  of  States,  they  would  scorn  reenfranchisement  by  such  a  plan. 
If  there  were  no  other  reason  to  reject  this  juggling  scheme,  justice  to 
"  the  faithful  found  among  the  faithless"  South,  would  demand  its  rejection. 

II.  As  to  the  republican  form  of  government  to  be  made  by  this  plan. 
Republicanism  is  founded  on  the  will  of  the  people.  How  does  the  plan 
work  out  this  will?  Suppose  Tennessee  to-morrow  should  register  one- 
tenth  of  her  145,348  voters  in  1860,  viz.,  14,534.  They  make  an  anti- 
slavery  constitution  ;  a  majority  of  the  14,534  adopt,  to  wit :  7,268  cit 
izens.  They  may  have  all  been  rebels  ;  no  matter.  They  may  the  day 
after  the  constitution  is  adopted  change  its  free  clause  into  a  slavery  clause, 
or  the  State  into  rebellion  again ;  no  matter.  There  may  remain  130,- 
804  voters  who  do  not  agree  to  the  constitution,  who  took  no  part  in  its 
manufacture.  They  may  be  mixed  of  Union  and  rebel  proclivities. 
They,  however,  seek  to  return  to  their  old  allegiance.  The  spirit  of  Jack 
son  and  the  fire  of  patriotism  illumine  their  wasted  hearthstones,  and  they 
— the  nine-tenths — agree  to  restore  the  old  Constitution  of  Tennessee  under 
the  Federal  Constitution  as  it  is  ;  or  they  may  even  abolish,  as  they  have 
the  right,  slavery  in  their  midst ;  yet  the  President  binds  himself  to  hold 
them  in  forced  submission  to  the  14,534,  or  its  majority  !  The  truth  is, 
a  test  oath  to  require  citizens  to  support  his  policy  as  to  slaves  is,  not  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  republican  government,  but  to  the  Republican  party. 
It  is  an  oath  of  fealty  to  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN.  He  sends  out  heralds  to  pro 
claim  :  "  Ho  !  ye  ;  all  who  will  prepare  to  forswear  your  sentiments  and 
enter  into  an  arrangement  to  make  new  States  with  one-tenth  over  nine- 
tenths,  and  thus  form  electoral  colleges  to  vote  for  me,  I  swear  by  my 
army  and  navy,  that  you,  though  you  are  pardoned  criminals,  shall  be 
the  cornerstones  in  the  new  State,  and  shall  have  the  shield  of  the  Ex 
ecutive  and  the  protection  of  the  flag ! "  In  vain  we  search  Spanish 
American  annals  for  so  shameless  a  pronunciamiento  for  revolution  and 
anarchy.  It  is  thus,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  your  party  seeks  to  unhinge  the 
massive  portals  which  lead  within  the  chambers  of  reserved  popular  power — 
those  doors  which  for  so  many  years,  on  the  golden  hinges  turning,  opened 
so  readily  to  the  States  as  they  entered  within  the  sacred  adytum  of  our 
political  faith.  \ 

There  is  one  answer  to  these  propositions  always  on  the  lip  of  the  anti- 
slavery  devotee.  He  holds  that  no  slave  State  can  be  accounted  re 
publican.  This  would  be  news,  indeed,  to  the  Jeffersons.  Washingtons, 
Madisons,  and  Adamses,  who  established  these  States  as  republican, 
twelve  out  of  thirteen  being  slave  at  the  outset.  This  would  be  news, 


380  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

indeed,  to  the  pioneers  of  the  Northwest,  to  the  early  settlers  of  Ohio, 
who  remember  the  deed  of  cession  of  Virginia,  whereby  our  sovereignty 
was  forever  declared  to  be  equal  to  and  inviolate  as  that  of  the  slave  State 
of  Virginia. 

But  what  sort  of  republicanism  is  that  which  builds  a  State  from  a 
small  minority  of  its  people  ?  The  majority  of  a  people,  expressing  its  own 
will,  forms  a  republic.  A  minority,  or  even  a  majority,  following  the  will 
of  a  despot,  forms  a  monarchy.  One-tenth  of  the  legpal  voters  ruling  nine- 
tenths,  is  an  oligarchy.  Reconstruction  of  republican  governments  on 
such  a  basis,  is  as  absurd  as  the  structures  built  by  the  architects  in  Gul 
liver,  who  began  their  houses  at  the  roof  in  the  air  !  The  President  quotes 
the  guaranty  of  the  Constitution  as  to  republican  State  governments,  and 
promises  under  its  sanction  protection  to  these  pseudo-republics !  But 
he  forgets  that  if  the  Southern  States  are  deceased,  or  out  of  the  Union, 
there  is  the  third  section  of  article  fourth  of  the  Constitution,  which  pro 
vides  for  the  admission  of  States.  Does  the  President,  in  his  theory, 
propose  to  disregard  this  clause?  Unless  Congress  consent,  all  these 
scaffoldings,  erected  by  his  own  will,  will  tumble  to  naught.  If  States 
can  be  declared  dead,  or  burned  out  by  the  fires  of  wTar,  perhaps  New 
England  may  some  day  find  her  theory  come  home,  in  a  reconstruction  of 
her  six  States  into  one,  and  the  reduction  of  her  twelve  Senators  into  two  ! 
Lines  of  longitude,  as  well  as  of  latitude,  may  sometimes  reconstruct 
States.  T^ie  basis  of  our  Federal  Government  is  States,  having  constitu 
tions  and  laws — the  emanation  of  the  popular  will.  This  will  is  expressed 
through  suffrage.  This  suffrage  in  States  is  regulated  by  their  own  con 
stitution  and  laws.  State  voters  thus  qualified,  and  they  only,  can  vote 
for  members  of  Congress.  When,  therefore,  the  President  undertakes  to 
breathe  into  a  State  the  breath  of  life  by  a  new  code  .of  suffrage,  even  if 
the  State  were  defunct,  he  usurps  a  power  never  granted,  and  a  sover 
eignty  belonging  solely  to  the  people.  If  these  States  in  rebellion  are  de 
stroyed — if  the  tabula  rasa  remains,  upon  which  the  President  can  write 
new  constitutions,  with  new  qualifications  for  voters — then  secession  and 
revolution  have  done  legally  what  no  one  but  a  rebel  or  traitor  ever  be 
lieved  could  be  done. 

III.  This  brings  me  to  the  radical  question  of  the  day.  The  message 
of  the  President  and  the  bill  of  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  assume 
that  the  State  governments  in  the  rebel  States  are  out  of  existence  or 
usurped,  and  that  the  territory  should  be  governed  as  such  by  the  United 
States,  until  new  State  governments  shall  be  formed.  The  President  does 
not  commit  himself  to  this  plan  as  the  only  one  :  "  Saying  one  thing,  he 
does  not  mean  to  say  that  he  would  not  say  another."  Very  well.  But 
one  thing  lie  has  assumed — that  the  old  States  are  gone.  But  let  us  do 
him  justice.  He  suggests  that  on  u  reconstructing  a  loyal  State  govern 
ment  in  any  State,  the  name  of  the  State,  the  boundary,  the  subdivisions, 
&c.,  may  be  maintained  ;  "  provided,  always,  the  abolition  policy  prevail. 
This  is  like  the  prescript  of  the  old  Sultan,  who,  in  commanding  an  obnox 
ious  vizier  to  be  ensacked  and  thrown  into  the  Bosporus,  generously  hoped 
his  turban  and  clothes  might  remain  unmoistened.  I  know  it  is  said  that 
the  President  repudiates  the  policy  of  reducing  the  States  to  territories. 
His  plan  is  to  select,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  the  old  building-spot ;  perhaps 


CIVIL   WAE.  381 

| 

use  some  of  the  old  foundations,  say  one-tenth ;  but  he  changes  radically 
the  plan  and  structure  of  the  building,  and  takes  away  from  its  lord  the 
sovereign  control  of  the  establishment.  He  insists  that  there  shall  be  homo 
geneity  of  arrangement  in  the  structure ;  that  for  different  conditions, 
classes,  systems,  climate,  and  position,  the  same  relations  shall  be  insti 
tuted.  This  plan  is  not  only  absurd  in  philosophy,  unsound  in  economy, 
but  revolutionary  in  practice.  He  in  fact  says  :  "  I  shall  fight  on  to  keep 
the  Southern  States  out  until  they  conform  to  my  views  as  to  negroes. 
My  abolition  condition  to  Union  is  inexorable !  The  proclamation  shall 
be  on  a  par  with  the  Constitution.  Let  no  one  bleed  for  one  without  dying 
for  the  other  ! "  God  help  the  nation,  plunged  in  an  abyss  of  blood  for 
such  crudities ! 

Surely,  if  the  State  suicide  doctrine  be  sound,  this  plan  of  rebuilding 
is  not.  Let  me  consider  that  State  suicide  doctrine.  It  professes  to  be 
based  on  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Hiawatha  case.  That 
decision  is  perverted  to  sustain  this  theory.  The  Court  condemned  cer 
tain  property  captured,  because  the  property  was  within  the  lines  of  the 
enemy,  actually  holding  those  lines  by  force,  though  without  right ;  and 
not  because  of  the  moral  or  political  relation  of  the  owner.  The  Court 
decided  nothing  as  to  the  legal  and  political  status  of  the  owner  ;  but  be 
cause  the  property  would  help  the  enemy,  it  was  to  be  taken  as  prize  of 
war.  There  is  in  that  decision  no  recognition  of  the  right  of  secession  ; 
much  less  of  the  monstrous  and  cruel  doctrine  that  rebels  in  arms  can 
abolish  the  legal  rights  of  loyal  men  or  the  institutions  of  States. 

If  war  blots  out  the  States  insurgent,  by  virtue  of  its  territorial  and 
belligerent  character,  then  war  does  by  its  violence,  what  secession  would 
do  by  its  ordinances.  The  right  to  expunge  a  State  is  co-ordinate  with 
the  right  to  secede.  If  a  State  can  be  forced  out  by  the  vote  of  its  own 
sovereignty,  or  by  combinations  of  men,  without  a  constitutional  amend 
ment,  then  any  State  can  be  expelled  by  Federal  action.  If  the  Union 
becomes  disagreeable  to  a  State,  then  the  State  may  become  disagreeable 
to  the  Union ;  and  if  a  State  may  retire  at  pleasure,  why  cannot  a  State 
be  repudiated  at  will?  These  rights — if  they  exist,  which  I  deny — co- 
relate.  They  are  inseparable.  Suppose  it  had  been  proposed  to  expel 
South  Carolina  from  the  Union  for  her  contumacy,  or  Massachusetts  for 
her  intermeddling — what  a  burst  of  indignation  we  should  have  had  from 
each  !  They  would  have  exclaimed :  "  Show  us  the  power  to  throttle  our 
State  sovereignty,  by  denying  us  participation  in  this  blessed  Union. 
"What !  strip  us  of  our  American  citizenship — place  us  outside  of  your  navi 
gation  and  commercial  laws  and  treaties  ;  leave  us  at  the  mercy  of  foreign 
powers  ;  belittle  us  to  nothing ;  rob  us  of  our  common  interests  in  a  com 
mon  treasure,  territory,  government,  history,  and  glory.  Never  !  "  Yet 
wherein  does  this  claim  of  holding  these  States  South  as  conquered  prov 
inces  by  military  force,  degrading  the  equal  dignity  of  the  States  by  the 
creation  of  a  new  sovereign  power,  differ  in  principle  from  secession?  If 
secession  be  a  nullity,  and  if  the  Constitution  is  not  impaired,  nor  the 
rights  of  the  States  destroyed,  then  I  can  see  how  arms — inspired  by  wise 
and  persuasive  measures — may  in  time  redeem  the  States  ;  but  on  the  other 
theory,  all  the  tears,  miseries,  confiscations,  and  blood  are  in  vain,  in 
vain,  in  vain.  Can  we  be  surprised,  therefore,  that  an  analytic  mind  like 


382  f  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

that  of  the  Postmaster  General,  should  have  at  once  descried  in  these  fal 
lacies  of  abolition,  a  conspiracy  in  aid  of  the  rebellion? 

IV.  I  now  propose  to  apply  the  lessons  of  history,  by  inquiring 
whether,  even  admitting  all  these  plans  to  be  legal,  and  even  if  decided  to 
be  so,  some  wiser,  better,  and  more  practicable  plan  may  not  be  adopted. 
Is  there  no  amnesty,  no  accommodation  possible  ?  There  is.  I  believe 
that  the  restoration  of  the  Union  is  possible,  if  we  pursue  a  proper  policy. 
The  restoration  of  the  Union  as  it  was,  is  only  impossible  to  those  who, 
for  other  objects,  do  not  desire  it.  The  reconciliation  of  all  the  States  is 
possible — nay,  probable,  with  the  restoration  of  the  doctrine  of  local  self- 
government  and  State  sovereignty  on  matters  not  delegated  to  the  Federal 
Government.  I  know  no  other  hope.  If  this  fail,  all  is  dark  and  chaotic. 
Diverse  interests  and  systems  find  their  unity  alone  in  this  system  of 
laissez  faire  to  the  States.  How  then  is  it  possible  to  restore  local  and 
State  sovereignty,  and  thus  unite  our  hapless  and  lacerated  country?  His 
tory  never  presented  so  grand  a  problem  for  statesmanship.  I  approach 
it  with  something  of  that  awe  which  solemnizes  the  soul  when  we  enter 
within  some  vast  and  consecrated  fabric — vistas  and  aisles  of  thought 
opening  on  every  side — pillars  and  niches  and  cells  within  cells,  mixing  in 
seeming  confusion,  but  all  really  in  harmony,  and  rich  with  a  light 
streaming  through  the  dim  forms  of  the  past,  and  blest  with  an  effluence 
from  God,  though  dimmed  and  half  lost  in  the  contaminated  reason  and 
passion  of  man. 

Conscious  of  the  magnitude  of  this  rebellion,  and  oppressed  Avith  the 
feebleness  of  the  policy  directed  against  it,  I  still  believe  in  the  restoration 
of  the  old  Union.  Hence,  whatever  method  I  should  advocate  for  the 
conduct  of  the  war,  or  the  celebration  of  peace,  I  am  forever  concluded 
against  one  conclusion,  the  independence  of  the  South.  I  believe  the 
principle  of  unity  to  be  absolutely  superior  to  the  right  of  sectional  nation 
ality.  The  destiny  of  these  United  States  is  to  continue  united,  and  per 
haps  to  add  other  States,  until  the  whole  continent  is  in  alliance.  Our 
fate  is  to  expand  and  not  to  contract  our  influence  or  our  limits.  All 
other  notions  are  but  transitory  and  evanescent. 

I  am  happy  to  be  in  accord  with  the  President,  if  indeed  he  holds  yet 
to  the  doctrine  announced  in  his  Inaugural :  "  Physically  speaking,  we 
cannot  separate."  I  had  adopted  the  same  sentiment,  that  there  were 
Union  foundations,  by  the  very  political  geology  of  God,  upon  which  the 
old  Union  could  and  would  be  rebuilt.  In  his  first  message,  the  President 
held: 

"  The  two  sections  could  not  remove  from  each  other,  nor  build  an  impassable  wall 
between  them  ;  that  intercourse,  amicable  or  hostile,  must  continue.  Is  it  possible,  then, 
to  make  that  intercourse  more  advantageous,  or  more  satisfactory,  after  separation  than 
before  ?  Can  aliens  make  treaties  easier  than  friends  can  make  laws  ?  Can  treaties  be 
more  faithfully  enforced  between  aliens  than  laws  can  among  friends  ?  Suppose  you  go 
to  war,  you  cannot  fight  always  ;  and  when,  after  much  loss  on  both  sides  and  no  gain  on 
either,  you  cease  fighting,  the  identical  old  questions  as  to  terms  of  intercourse  are  again 
upon  you." 

These  sentiments  are  founded  in  principle,  and  drawn  by  correct  de 
ductions  from  history.  They  are  the  germ  of  all  true  politics.  Sorry  am 
I  that  in  a  moment  of  pressure  and  temptation  he  should  have  been  drawn 


CIVIL   WAR.  383 

from  them  by  the  weird  whisperings  of  ambition  under  the  baleful  eclipse 
of  fanaticism. 

The  argument  from  physical,  and  therefore  from  economic  reasons, 
for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union,  is  powerful.  But  history  and  the  experi 
ence  of  other  nations  show  that  the  dissolution  of  the  old  Union  might  con 
sist  with  a  different  kind  of  unity.  Any  union  which  would  leave  trade  free 
and  locomotion  unrestricted  between  the  States  North  and  South,  interior 
and  exterior,  would  answer  the  mere  physical  and  economic  objects  of 
union.  It  is  well  known  that  Judge  Douglas  contemplated  as  among  the 
possibilities  an  American  Zollverein,  which  would  have  secured  unity  of 
territory  for  commercial  purposes.  In  an  essay  which  he  said  had  cost 
him  more  labor  than  any  work  of  his  life,  and  which  death  prevented  him 
from  giving  to  his  countrymen,  he  ascribed  our  situation  to  the  aggressive 
spirit  of  abolitionism,  and  held  that,  for  the  present,  nothing  but  a  com 
mercial  union,  founded  upon  the  plan  of  the  States  of  Germany,  would  be 
practicable  to  sustain  those  influences  which  made  the  United  States  the 
happiest  and  most  prosperous  of  nations.  But  he  only  contemplated  it 
as  an  initial  point  from  which  he  would,  through  common  interests  and 
kindness,  move  on  to  a  more  intimate  union,  until  in  time  the  Union  as  it 
was  might  again  be  restored  in  its  primitive  fulness  and  glory !  * 

Something  more  than  physical  boundaries  and  commercial  reasons 
must  exist  to  make  that  old  Union  possible.  The  President  understands 
it,  without  giving  it  full  emphasis,  when  he  says  :  "  Friends  make  laws," 
and  the  "  identical  old  questions  as  to  terms  of  intercourse  "  remain  after 
fighting.  Fighting  may  do  much,  it  may  be  admitted  ;  exhaustion,  calam 
ities,  and  bloodshed  may  make  it  the  interest  of  men  to  coalesce  to  avoid  such 
horrors  ;  but  what  can  produce  in  a  people  the  idem  sententiam  de  repub- 
lica  f  Can  that  be  forced  ?  If  not,  what  will  you  add  to  and  after 
force,  to  inspire  the  common  sentiment  which  we  call  patriotism?  Many 
sad  and  harsh  experiences  may  be  ours  before  that  event.  Military  rule, 
anarchy,  destruction  of  individual  opinion,  speech,  and  liberty — all  these 
may  be  in  the  path  of  the  old  or  of  another  polity.  These  will  be  our  ex 
periences,  unless  we  take  the  straight,  short,  and  right  line  of  the  Consti 
tution.  We  may  wander  forty  years  in  a  political  wilderness  before  we 
attain  the  promise  of  our  youthful  and  exultant  nationality. 

Before  attempting  to  show  how  this  nationality  may  be  restored,  it 
would  be  best  to  define  it.  What  then  is  Nationality  ?  Let  the  definition 
of  the  English  logician,  John  Stuart  Mill,  answer  :  "  We  mean  a  princi 
ple  of  sympathy,  not  of  hostility  ;  of  union,  not  of  separation.  We  mean 
a  feeling  of  common  interest  among  those  who  live  under  the  same  Gov 
ernment,  and  are  contained  within  the  same  natural  or  historical  boun 
daries.  We  mean  that  one  part  of  the  community  shall  not  consider 
themselves  as  foreigners  with  regard  to  another  part ;  that  tlisy  shall 
cherish  the  tie  which  holds  them  together  ;  shall  feel  that  they  are  one  people  ; 
that  their  lot  is  cast  together;  that  evil  to  any  of  their  fellow  countrymen  is 
evil  to  themselves ;  and  that  they  cannot  selfishly  free  themselves  from 
their  share  of  any  common  inconvenience  by  severing  the  connection." 

Is  it  not  strange  to  a  dispassionate  thinker,  that  those  who  are  not  hos- 

*  Speech  of  Hon.  Henry  May,  Feb.  2,  1863.—"  Globe,"  3d  session  37th  Congress,  p.  687. 


384:  EIGHT   YEARS   IN  CONGRESS. 

tile  in  the  sense  of  hate  to  the  South ;  those  who  would  woo  them  to  the 
ancient  order  and  Union,  by  reason,  old  associations, "the  allurements  of 
peace  and  patriotism,  to  make  again  of  the  circle  of  equal  States  the  old 
Federal  sovereignty,  should  be  held  to  be  the  least  national ;  while  those 
who  have  so  far  forgotten  the  common  interest  of  all,  under  the  same 
Government,  who  regard  themselves  as  alien  to  the  South,  even  as  the 
South  regard  themselves  as  alien  to  us,  should  be  held  as  the  most  nation 
al?  I  do  proclaim  it,  on  the  basis  of  a  logic  incontestable,  that  he  among 
us  who  wishes  most  evil  to  any  part  of  the  country  is  THE  MORAL  TRAITOR 
AND  SOCIAL  ANARCH.  They,  too,  who  would  selfishly  free  themselves, 
from  their  share  of  any  common  inconvenience  by  severing  the  connection, 
like  those  of  the  South,  are  also  enemies  to  the  whole  country.  What  can 
we  think  of  his  national  feeling,  who  would  so  disregard  the  interest  of 
one  half  of  his  own  country,  as  to  wish  to  see  it  utterly  erased  by  war  ;  a 
tabula  rasa ;  its  cotton  crop,  and  other  exports,  worth  $200,000,000  an 
nually,  which  is  required  as  the  basis  of  our  commerce  and  for  the  pay 
ment  of  our  debts,  and  which  gave  the  nation  the  advantage  of  the  world, 
entirely  ruined  or  transferred  to  other  and  alien  hands  ;  its  laborers  col 
onized  in  tropical  lands  to  benefit  foreigners,  or  suddenly  freed  without 
benefit  to  themselves  or  to  the  superior  race  ;  and  its  very  statehood  blot 
ted  out,  because  of  the  sedition  of  its  people  ! 

We  are  powerful  in  proportion  as  we  are  national.  If  we  should  fol 
low  the  advice  of  passion,  and  treat  the  Southern  States  now  in  civil  war 
as  England  treated  Ireland,  we  become  weak  and  denationalized.  If  we 
pursue  the  South  with  a  licentious  uncivic  soldiery,  gloating  with  antici 
pations  of  the  plunder  of  private  effects,  or  with  the  promises  already  held 
out  of  parcelling  out  the  lands  of  the  South  as  the  bounty  which  revenge 
pays  for  pillage,  thus  whetting  a  tigerish  appetite  for  a  great  festival  of 
blood  and  rapine,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  special  Nemesis  which  Herodo 
tus  traced  through  the  early  eras  of  history,  will  haunt  the  men  who  insti 
gate  and  the  men  who  execute  such  a  fell  and  imbecile  policy.  If,  as  in 
Rome  once  and  in  Spanish  America  now,  we  bribe  one  part  of  the  nation 
by  the  robbery  of  another  portion ;  then  we  may  be  sure  that  conflicts 
will  be  renewed  when  exhaustion  is  overcome,  and  our  flag,  like  that  of 
old  Spain,  will  typify  a  river  of  blood  between  margins  of  gold.  If  we 
would  avoid  the  constant  aggregation  and  disintegration  of  feeble  masses 
in  different  provinces,  such  as  the  history  of  South  America  demonstrates, 
we  must  learn  to  carry  out,  better  than  the  President  has  done,  his  own 
principle  of  friendly  legislation,  instead  of  repellent  alienation.  Powerful 
as  are  our  armies — gradually  encroaching  amidst  many  mistakes  and 
vicissitudes  upon  the  territory  which  is  insurgent — great  as  are  our  Par- 
rott  guns,  and  invulnerable  as  are  our  irou-clads,  one  thing  we  have  to 
learn  yet  from  history,  that  our  best  soldiers  are  not,  like  Charlemagne's 
paladins,  possessed  of  enchanted  weapons.  The  only  weapon  which 
wounds  the  cause  of  rebellion,  and  yet  which  can  transmute  the  rebel  into 
the  patriot,  is  the  enchantment  of  friendship.  He  who  would  destroy  a 
part  of  his  own  country,  as  if  it  were  alien,  has  no  more  love  for  it  than 
Saturn  had  for  the  children  of  his  own  loins  whom  he  devoured.  Such  a 
creature  is  not  a  patriot,  even  if  he  were  a  man.  Patriotism  never  de- 


CIVIL   WAR.  385 

sires  to  weaken  or  disgrace,  but  always  to  strengthen  and  glorify  the 
country. 

From  these  suggestions  it  will  be  apparent  that  something  besides 
force  is  needed  to  reconcile  States  which  are  insurgent.  What  that  some 
thing  is,  which  I  may  call  the  philosophy  of  union,  can  be  ascertained  by 
understanding  what  that  element  is,  which  is  the  philosophy  of  dissolution. 
All  disturbances  of  property,  person,  liberty,  home — whether  by  emanci 
pation,  confiscation,  extermination,  or  other  repellent  policies — can  never 
beget  confidence.  No  plan  that  debars  nine-tenths  of  a  people  from  polit- 
icaJ  privileges,  and  outlaws  them  from  their  own  homes  and  rights,  can 
renew  allegiance.  But  such  confidence  and  allegiance  have  been  begotten 
and  renewed  in  other  lands  rent  with  civil  feuds  ;  why  not  in  this  ?  To 
answer  this,  I  shall  consider,  first,  the  mode  by  which  such  results  can  be 
attained,  and  secondly,  the  illustrations  from  history  showing  such  results. 

1st.  States  or  societies  are  made  up  of  individuals.  To  reform  society 
or  control  masses,  individuals  must  be  reached.  M.  Guizot,  in  his  His 
tory  of  Civilization  (page  25),  has  demonstrated  that  two  elements  are 
comprised  in  the  great  fact  that  we  call  civilization,  the  progress  of  soci 
ety  and  the  progress  of  individuals.  The  one  is  but  the  external  phenom 
enon  of  which  the  other  is  the  cause.  Society  is  merely  the  theatre  for  the 
immortal  man.  Society  is  made  for  man,  not  man  for  society.  Society 
dies,  changes,  rots,  regrows,  and  decays  again  ;  man  blooms  in  immortal 
youth  beyond  this  limited  destiny.  When,  therefore,  you  adopt  a  policy 
to  restore  States  or  rebuild  the  dismantled  social  order,  you  must  begin 
by  reaching  the  character  of  men,  influencing  their  literature,  their  tastes, 
their  maxims,  their  laws  and  institutions,  their  industries,  their  wealth  and 
its  distribution  and  means  of  attainment,  their  occupations,  their  divisions 
into  classes,  and  all  their  relations  to  each  other.  Whenever  you  have 
harmonized  these  so  as  to  give  contentment,  you  may  be  assured  that  no 
military  compression  or  civil  oppression  can  long  keep  the  individuals  in 
terested  from  a  common  consent  to  the  common  Government.  Hence, 
when  the  philosophic  statesman  perceives  such  a  civil  convulsion  as  this 
which  arrays  the  sections  of  America  in  deadly  conflict,  he  must  accom 
pany  his  historic  researches  with  the  d  priori  reasons  grounded  in  human 
nature.  Thus  he  may  construct  his  science  of  social  statics,  and  ascer 
tain  the  requisites  of  stable  political  unir*i.  One  of  these  requisites  is  the 
habitual  discipline  and  regard  for  Government  on  the  part  of  rulers  and 
ruled.  Let  all  personal  impulses  and  conscientious  convictions  be  subor 
dinated  to  the  supreme  control  of  the  proper  Government ;  resist  all 
temptation  to  break  through  such  control ;  and  you  have  a  tremendous 
element  of  patriotic  unison.  Mankind  naturally  do  not  like  government. 
Brave  men  are  loth  to  submit  to  control.  Discipline,  aided  by  religion 
and  a  common  interest,  is  the  power  which  keeps  men  from  becoming 
anarchical.  Combined  with  this  civil  discipline  is  the  feeling  of  allegiance. 
Without  this  feeling  no  State  can  be  permanent.  When  the  rulers  fail  to 
give  that  protection  which  is  the  consideration  and  correlative  of  allegi 
ance,  then  allegiance  fails,  and  society  declines,  despotism  supervenes,  or 
foreign  conquest  is  imposed.  Let  statesmen  remember  that  this  is  the 
capital  defect  of  our  rulers,  and  the  proximate  cause  of  our  troubles. 
Thus  remembering,  let  them  study  history  with  a  view  to  the  reinstate- 
25 


386  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

ment  of  that  protection  to  labor,  liberty,  property,  and  life,  which  assures 
to  the  State  the  allegiance  of  the  people.  This  feeling  is  sometimes  called 
"  loyalty."  The  French  philosopher,  M.  Comte,  has  thus  described  it : 

"  This  feeling  may  vary  in  its  objects,  and  is  not  confined  to  any  particular  form  of 
government ;  but  whether  in  a  democracy  or  a  monarchy,  its  essence  is  always  the  same, 
viz.,  that  there  be  in  the  constitution  of  the  State  something  which  is  settled,  something 
permanent,  and  not  to  be  called  in  question  ;  something  which,  by  general  agreement, 
has  a  right  to  be  where  it  is,  and  to  be  secure  against  disturbance,  whatever  else  may 
change." 

The  SACRED  SOMETHING  in  our  political  system  is  the  written  Federal 
Constitution,  and  the  system  of  State  Governments,  both  having  their 
basis  in  the  sovereign  will  of  the  people  of  the  States.  Not  less  sacred, 
because  not  less  above  discussion,  are  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States, 
and  the  still  more  important  reservation  of  sovereiguty  in  the  people. 
This  is  the  essential  permanency  of  society  in  the  United  States.  This 
was  the  relation  which  all  parties,  whether  at  Charleston  or  at  Chicago, 
agreed  should  not  be  disturbed  ;  which  the  President  declared  should  not 
be  disturbed  by  him  ;  and  the  fear  of  whose  disturbance  has  convulsed  a 
nation  of  thirty  millions.  This  mystic  union  of  the  Federal  and  State 
systems  was  the  sacramental  essence,  the  divine  appointment,  above  the 
storms  and  eddies  of  discussion.  In  this  were  comprehended  our  ancient 
liberties  and  ordinances.  Even  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  State  were 
imbound  with  it.  Indeed,  it  was  the  only  fundamental  law,  pervading  our 
society  as  gravitation  pervades  the  stellar  spaces. 

Those,  whether  North  or  South,  who  failed  to  keep  this  essence  sacred 
and  sealed,  are  responsible  for  the  consequences.  Abolitionism,  which 
lived  by  the  disturbance  of  this  system,  was  like  secession,  for  both  sprung 
from  the  same  direful  agitation  and  the  same  disturbance  of  the  Constitu 
tion. 

But  is  there  no  light  through  the  clouds  of  war  ?  Have  we  no  solatium 
for  past  wrongs,  no  immunity  for  future  griefs  ?  Are  anger,  hatred,  scorn, 
revenge — the  brood  of  wicked  passion  rankling  in  the  heart — are  these  to 
remain?  And  shall  there  be  no  interregnum  for  the  serene  dynasty  of 
peace  and  love  to  walk  together  white-handed  through  this  bleeding  and 
bloody  land?  Shall  no  one  pour  the  Lethean  wave  over  the  scenes  of 
death  and  the  sorrows  of  mourning?  Shall  there  be  no  recantation  of 
the  oaths  of  fierce  men,  vowing  revenge  for  homes  wasted,  property  con 
fiscated,  brethren  destroyed,  and  cities  ruined?  O  God!  Is  there  no 
hope  that  even  time  may  be  allowed  to  assuage  the  hates  and  griefs 
of  this  bloody  era?  Shall  the  young  men  of  to-day  wear  the  rancor  in 
their  hearts  till  their  hairs  are  whitened  for  the  tomb,  and  teach  their  chil 
dren  and  children's  children  to  perpetuate  the  hate  of  the  fathers  ?  If  this 
is  to  be  the  fate  of  our  Union,  then  God  has  mocked  His  creatures  by  fix 
ing  them  in  habitations  bound  together  by  the  same  skies,  rivers,  moun 
tains,  and  lakes  ;  mocked  them  by  fixing  in  their  hearts  the  principle  of 
love  ;  and  cruelly  mocked  them  by  sending  to  this  star  a  Prince  of  Peace 
as  an  Exemplar  and  a  Saviour ! 

.  Who  are  the  men,  or  the  fiends,  who  talk  of  utter  extermination  ?  If 
it  were  possible,  it  were  execrable  !  To  exterminate  the  Southern  people 
rather  than  reach  them,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  proposed,  by  friendly 


CIVIL   WAK.  38T 

laws,  is  a  crime  more  heinous  than  rebellion.  Let  the  pitiless  destruction 
of  the  Moors  of  Andalusia  by  Philip  II.,  the  merciless  slaughter  of  the 
French  in  La  Vendee,  Claverhouse's  bloody  hunts  after  the  Scottish 
Covenanters,  the  stained  and  cadaverous  cheek  of  Ireland,  the  blood 
shot  eye  of  maddened  Poland,  the  grim  submission  of  revengeful  Vene- 
tia,  teach  us  by  their  history  that  powder  cannot  cement  nor  bombs  bear 
messages  of  love.  Superadd  to  your  force,  conciliation,  and  then  your 
force  may  not  be  mere  brute  violence.  Force  has  welded  by  its  blows,  but 
they  were  tempered  in  the  fire  of  old  and  loving  associations.  "  I  do  not 
fight  the  South  because  I  hate  her,"  said  Mr.  Crittenden  ;  "  I  love  her  still/' 
Conquest  by  force  is  only  physical :  subjugation  does  not  imply  mental 
acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  vanquished  in  the  ideas  of  the  victor. 
Such  a  war,  therefore,  will  produce  only  the  status  quo  ante  helium,  leav 
ing  an  absolute  reciprocal  negation  ;  each  party  denying  the  claims  of  the 
other,  and  leaving  no  common  ground  for  a  truce  to  intellectual  conflict. 

How  can  we  reconcile  the  hostilities  of  the  people  thus  physically 
bound  to  live  in  peace  and  union  ?  It  is  clear  that  if  the  arms  of  both 
belligerents  should  in  a  moment  fall  from  nerveless  hands,  there  would 
remain  to-day  the  same  antagonism  of  ideas.  This  antagonism  was  re 
conciled  on  the  principles  of  State  sovereignty  and  local  self-government 
as  to  all  domestic  questions,  including  slavery.  -  "Webster,  Clay,  and  even 
Calhoun,  in  1850,  saw  union  only  in  this  way.  Mr.  Douglas,  Mr.  Crit 
tenden,  and  even  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Toombs  would  have  preserved  it  by 
the  same  principle  in  1861.  The  compromises  of  1861  were  drawn  from 
this  source — a  final  adjustment  of  the  character  of  all  the  territory,  and  a 
complete  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  the  domestic  relations  of  the 
Territories  and  of  the  States.  This  principle  would  have  settled  the  diffi 
culties.  It  was  defeated  by  the  action  of  intemperate  and  blood-desiring 
men.  But  the  rule  of  right  is  eternal,  for  it  is  born  of  God.  What  was 
kind  and  just  before  the  South  resorted  to  arms  is  right  to-day.  The  fact 
that  war  has  come  and  that  separation  is  impossible,  makes  more  urgent 
the  ascendency  of  a  party  whose  first  and  only  preference  is  for  the  Union 
through  compromise,  and  who  shall  at  least  be  allowed  to  try  the  experi 
ment  of  reconciling  the  States  by  guarantees  similar  to  those  proposed  in 
1861.  If  it  be  found  impossible  to  restore  the  old  association  of  States  by 
such  negotiation,  then,  and  not  till  then,  can  statesmen  begin  properly  to 
ponder  the  other  problems  connected  with  subjugation  and  recognition.  I 
regret  that  any  one,  especially  my  colleague  [Mr.  LONG],  should  have 
anticipated  these  questions,  and  in  his  patriotic  despair  should  have  ex 
pressed  his  preference  between  the  alternative  of  a  war  of  subjugation 
and  a  recognition  of  Southern  independence.  I  regard  each  alternative  as 
premature.  We  may  yet  change  the  war  from  the  diabolic  purposes  of 
those  in  power,  by  changing  that  power  to  other  hands  ;  and  we  are  not 
ready  to  sever  our  Union  while  that  hope  remains.  Of  the  two  evils  of 
subjugation  or  recognition,  I  make  my  choice  of  neither. 

2d.  That  such  restorations  have  been  made  in  other  lands  rent  by  civil 
conflict,  I  proceed  in  the  last  place  to  show.  But  such  restorations  have 
never  taken  place  in  the  case  of  an  empire  of  independent  provinces, 
governed  by  local  laws,  all  at  once  absorbed  or  compounded  into  a  central 
despotism.  War  cannot  work  such  restoration ;  or  if  war,  under  some 


EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

mighty  hand,  ever  does  it,  the  States  disintegrate,  and  fall  an  easy  prey  to 
military  will  or  foreign  subjugation.  Violence  may  preside  at  the  birth 
of  dynasties,  but  violence  is  at  the  death-bed.  Crcsar  may  defy  the  Sen 
ate  and  cross  the  Rubicon ;  but  Crcsar  had  his  Brutus.  The  works  of 
violence  are  soon  changed.  No  juggling  plan  can  help  them  to  success. 
Order,  intelligence,  justice,  and  Providence  do  not  consist  with  violence  or 
fraud,  or  the  results  of  violence  and  fraud. 

Charlemagne,  with  all  his  conquests,  accomplished  nothing ;  all  his 
works  perished  with  him.  He  was  the  meteor  athwart  the  gloom  of  bar 
barism  and  feudality.  M.  Guizot  has  displayed  his  glories  and  triumphs, 
his  laws  and  reforms.  It  has  been  said  that  he  founded  nothing.  He 
founded  all  the  States  which  sprung  from  the  dismemberment  of  his  em 
pire.  His  empire  had  great  tempqrary  unity  ;  his  power  and  design  were 
grand ;  but  the  disorder  which  sprung  from  his  centralization  of  power 
was  invincible  ;  and  all  the  unity  of  force  died  out  with  him.  Wherever 
his  terrible  will  did  not  reach  in  person,  the  local  authorities  ruled  ;  and 
when  he  died,  his  dukes,  vassals,  counts,  vicars,  centenniers,  and  scabina 
became  independent  and  resolved  themselves  into  local  legislatures.  His 
vast  means  of  government  did  not  give  liberty  nor  permanency.  In  the 
letters  of  the  intellectual  "  giant  of  those  days" — Alcuin — to  Charlemagne, 
we  find  the  secret  of  Charlemagne's  success.  That  scholar  congratulates 
the  Emperor  on  his  victories  over  the  Huns,  and  gives  this  advice  for  their 
reconcilement :  ;'  1st.  Send  among  them  gentle-mannered  men.  2d. 
Do  not  require  the  tithe  of  them.  It  is  better  to  lose  the  tithe  than  to 
prejudice  Ale  people."  Another  writer  gave  to  Charlemagne  this  advice  : 
"  Mortal)  always  be  prepared  to  treat  mortals  with  mildness  ;  the  law  of 
nature  is  the  same  for  them  as  for  thee.  One  sacred  stream  flows  for 
them  as  for  thee."  This  is  the  philosophy  and  religion  of  amnesty. 
Thus  tutored,  power  reached  the  individual  by  its  mildness,  like  the  sun 
which  melted  the  avalanche.  Yet  this  grand  empire — belted  in  by  a 
whole  zone,  under  a  prince  with  a  diadem  more  brilliant  than  that  of 
Alexander  or  Napoleon — where  love  on  the  one  hand  and  fear  on  the  other 
kept  obedience — an  empire  which  had  Rome  for  a  citadel  and  the  Door 
keeper  of  Heaven  as  a  founder — on  the  death  of  its  benignant  ruler,  was 
cleft  into  dismembered  and  bleeding  fragments.  What  was  a  kingdom 
became  a  Babel  of  jarring  feudalities.  The  genius  of  its  cohesion  died, 
and  the  cohesion  crumbled.  When  our  Constitution — the  sacred  greatness 
of  which  is  beyond  human  name — shall  die,  then  another  Guizot  may  re 
cord  of  our  discordant  and  divergent  States,  what  he  recorded  of  the  great 
Empire  of  Charlemagne  :  "  Power  and  the  nation  were  dismembered  be 
cause  unity  of  Power  and  the  nation  was  impossible.'* 

Truly,  there  are  fixed  laws  for  the  events  of  history.  Society  re 
volves  in  an  orbit.  The  tenth  century  is  reproduced  in  another  era  and 
on  another  hemisphere.  If  the  principle  of  cohesion  in  our  country,  the 
Constitution ,  expires,  and  the  sundered  States  are  attempted  to  be  blotted  out, 
lo  !  a  central  despotism  for  a  few  jarring  months  or  years,  to  be  followed 
by  thirty-four  or  less  clashing  organisms !  This  is  the  perpetual  cosmos 
of  beauty  and  power,  to  which  America  is  invited  by  the  Destructives  in 
power  !  The  history  of  man  for  six  thousand  years  teaches  that  it  is  im 
possible  in  our  day  or  for  our  race,  or  indeed  for  mankind,  to  control  im- 


CIVIL  WAR.  389 

mense  regions  and  large  masses  of  men  under  the  exclusive  arbitrium  of 
one  man  or  one  central  government,  however  wise.  The  Emperor  of 
Russia  understood  this  in  granting  to  Finland  a  free  Constitution  and 
a  local  representative  assembly ;  and  although  he  fails  to  treat  Poland 
with  the  same  enlightened  justice,  yet  in  the  end  he  will  be  compelled  to 
grant  her  a  local  Constitution,  or  bid  her  depart  in  peace.  Let  us  con  the 
lesson.  What  is  the  relation  of  Russia  to  Poland  now,  after  nearly  fifty 
years  of  u  settlement"  by  the  treaty  of  1815?  A  secret  government  sits 
viewless  at  Warsaw.  Without  a  cannon  or  soldier  visible,  its  power  is 
terrible.  Russian  spies  in  vain  seek  for  the  implacable  foe.  Executions 
and  confiscations  are  revenged  by  assassination  and  fire.  Extermination 
is  the  only  remedy  which  Russia  has  contemplated  in  her  dilemma.  What 
advantage  has  Russia  from  such  a  rule  ?  Has  it  added  to  her  strength, 
her  stability,  or  her  grandeur?  The  throne  before  which  three  hundred 
languages  are  spoken,  is  powerless  over  a  desperate  people.  Brute  force 
only  destroys.  What  revenue  does  she  derive,  which  is  not  absorbed? 
What  can  repay  her  for  the  odium  of  her  conduct  amidst  civilized  na 
tions  ?  Wherein  does  the  new  gospel  of  extermination  in  this  country  dif- 
er  from  the  Russian  policy  toward  Poland  ?  At  the  end  of  thirty  years, 
we  may  have  in  the  South,  what  Russia  has  in  Poland,  only  an  army 
which  the  population  of  the  South  will  despise  and  defy.  We  may  gain 
the  Mississippi ;  but  where  is  its  olden  commerce  ?  Where  is  its  golden 
prosperity?  Our  difficulties  have  been  great  thus  far  in  struggling  to 
hold  the  military  occupation  and  power  we  have  attained  ;*but  our  diffi 
culties  will  have  but  begun,  when  we  begin  this  Executive  system  of  am 
nesty,  as  an  instrument  to  subjugate  and  exterminate. 

The  most  absolute  empires  which  the  world  has  witnessed  have  been 
but  an  aggregation  of  provinces  with  the  power  intensely  centralized.  In 
proportion  to  the  centralization  of  their  power,  was  their  career  brief  and 
calamitous.  Sometimes  the  success  and  ability  of  the  ruler  has  given 
permanency  and  strength  to  the  State  ;  but  as  in  the  case  of  Charlemagne, 
so  in  the  case  of  the  ancient  Eastern  empires,  the  death  of  the  ruler 
dismembers  the  realm.  The  great  Mesopotamian  monarchy*  was  an  em 
pire  which  was  made  up  of  a  congeries  of  kingdoms.  In  proportion  as 
these  retained  their  distinct  individuality,  remaining  as  they  were  before 
their  conquest — except  the  obligations  toward  the  paramount  authority — 
the  empire  subsisted  longest.  When  the  local  governments  kept  their  old 
laws,  religion,  line  of  kings,  law  of  succession,  their  internal  organization 
and  machinery,  only  acknowledging  an  external  suzerainty,  they  pre 
served  longest  their  heterogeneous  materials  in  one  empire.  But  even  in 
such  an  empire  there  were  elements  of  dissolution.  The  elements  bear 
such  a  similarity  to  our  o\vn  history  that  I  shall  examine  them,  for  our 
profit.  "  No  sooner,"  says  Rawlinson,  "  does  any  untoward  event  occur, 
as  a  disastrous  expedition,  a  foreign  attack,  a  domestic  conspiracy,  or 
even  an  untimely  or  unexpected  death  of  the  reigning  prince,  than  the  in 
herent  weakness  of  this  sort  of  government  displays  itself.  The  whole 
fabric  of  empire  falls  asunder ;  each  kingdom  reasserts  its  independence, 
tribute  ceases  to  be  paid,  and  the  mistress  of  a  hundred  States  finds  her- 

*  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  I.  p.  393  ct  seq. 


390  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

self  suddenly  thrust  back  into  the  primitive  condition,  stripped  of  the 
dominion  which  has  been  her  strength,  and  thrown  entirely  upon  her  own 
resources.  Then  the  whole  task  of  reconstruction  has  to  be  commenced 
anew  ;  one  by  one,  the  rebel  countries  are  overrun — tribute  is  reimposed — 
submission  reenforeed.  Progress  is  of  course  slow  and  uncertain  where 
the  empire  has  continually  to  be  built  up  again  from  its  foundations,  and 
where  at  any  time  a  day  may  undo  the  work  it  has  taken  centuries  to 
accomplish." 

Shall  this  chapter  be  the  record  of  our  history  ?  Already  we  approach 
its  fulfilment.  I  will  not  go  to  Virginia,  or  Tennessee,  or  Arkansas. 
Let  me  take  Louisiana,  and  from  one  State,  learn  the  fate  of  others.  Go 
to-day  into  the  rich  heart  of  that  tropical  State,  where  the  orange  blooms 
in  the  air  of  winter ;  or  visit  it  in  the  summer,  when  the  woods  and  fields 
are  luxuriant  with  their  leafy  life.  You  will  find  the  fields  no  longer 
opulent  with  corn,  cane,  or  the  cotton.  There  is  the  luxuriance  of 
weeds  and  decay.  The  undrained  plantation  is  becoming  the  swampy 
pleasure  ground  of  the  alligator  and  moccasin.  A  few  acres  of  corn, 
a  few  bursting  pods  of  cotton,  mark  the  spot  where  government  farms, 
with  disinterested  benevolence,  by  means  of  freed  labor !  The  sparse 
crops  are  choked  by  the  growth  of  weeds.  The  speculator,  with  his 
haste  for  "  one  crop  any  how,"  is  despoiling  all.  The  infusion  of  new 
life,  the  restoration  of  the  past  prosperity  which  we  were  promised,  is 
sadly  evidenced  by  the  ruin  of  houses  and  estates,  and  the  appearance 
of  a  speckled  hybrid  population — the  half-breed  bastards  born  of  bar 
barism,  whose  mothers  have  ceased  to  be  slaves  with  the  largest  liberty 
to  be — worse  !  The  imperial  city  of  New  Orleans,  which  was  the  fit 
ting  entrepot  for  the  resources  of  the  great  valley  of  the  Mississippi, 
still  remains,  but  alas !  how  changed !  The  scream  of  the  steam  pipe, 
the  song  of  the  boatmen,  the  bustle  of  the  levees,  and  the  busy  throng 
of  the  marts  of  commerce  are  all  gone,  for  order  has  been  established 
where  Butler  has  revelled  ! 

Military  power  is  the  same  to-day  which  it  was  under  the  satra 
pies  of  the  Orient.  There  is  in  it  no  element  of  allegiance  and  no 
resuscitation  of  nationality,  for  it  is  a  system  of  constraint,  and  does 
not  reach  the  individual  except  to  exasperate  and  oppress.  Our  radi 
cal  reasoners  have  talked  glibly  of  their  military  governors  for  rebel 
lious  provinces,  when  subjugated.  But  Mr.  SUMNER  has  become  fright 
ened  at  the  apparition  of  Cromwell's  Irish  bashaws,  and  favors  instead 
the  Congressional  rule  of  the  conquered  provinces.  The  gentleman  from 
Maryland  would  send  a  provisional  brigadier  to  the  States.  Mr.  Lincoln 
sets  up  one-tenth  over  the  nine-tenths,  and  his  own  will  over  all.  They 
forget  the  principle  involved.  They  ignore  the  history  I  have  given.  It 
is  not  who  shall  thus  govern,  but  shall  this  sort  of  government  be  allowed 
to  any  one?  "  Shall  Congress  assume  jurisdiction  of  the  rebel  States?" 
is  the  question  of  Mr.  SUMNER.  He  holds  that  the  States  are  blasted  as 
senseless  communities,  who  have  sacrificed  their  corporate  existence, 
which  made  them  living,  component  members  of  our  Union  of  States ; 
that  the  States  having  abdicated,  the  right  to  rule  them  is  transferred  to 
Congress.  Mr.  Lincoln  holds  that  himself  and  an  oligarchy  of  one-tenth 
shall  perform  the  same  function.  Suppose,  then,  Congress  governs  them  ! 


CIVIL  WAE.  391 

By  what  agents  will  it  govern  ?  Men  selected  by  the  people  of  the  States  ? 
Not  at  all.  That  is  what  is  sought  to  be  avoided.  Wherein,  then, 
will  such  Congressional  government  differ  from  the  military  satraps  or 
bashaws  selected  by  the  President,  or  even  by  the  tenth  of  the  people  se 
lected  for  their  anti-slavery  oaths  ?  If  the  States  are  obliterated  and  the 
source  of  power  is  centralized  at  the  Federal  capital,  wherein  does  such  a 
government  differ  from  the  rankest  Oriental  despotism?  What  will  be 
our  fate,  with  such  despotism?  History  is  like  Merlin's  magic  mirror,  in 
which  we  may  read  our  own  future.  The  seeming  strength  of  such  a 
system  as  conquered  provinces,  or  oligarchical  States,  to  take  the  place  of 
the  Constitution  and  local  State  governments,  is  its  weakness.  Such  a  sys 
tem  is  not  to  be  commended  for  the  imitation  of  Anglo-Saxon  people.  Be 
assured,  Representatives,  that  the  people  of  America  will  never  accept  such 
a  system  in  lieu  of  their  old,  any  more  than  they  will  accept  Presidential 
edicts  for  legislation,  State  suicide  for  State  resuscitation,  or  an  abolition 
tithe  suffrage  for  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  !  With  such  a  programme 
of  tyranny  against  the  States  South,  how  is  it  possible  to  preserve  the 
liberties  of  the  people  North  ?  Can  such  an  image,  part  brass  and  part 
clay,  stand?  Will  not  a  Government  despotic  as  an  Oriental  empire  to 
ward  one  half  of  the  nation,  become  intolerable  and  oppressive  to  the 
other  half?  Let  the  experience  of  the  people  under  the  war  power  an 
swer.  Let  the  stifling  of  free  speech  and  free  thought,  the  censorship  of 
the  telegraph  and  surveillance  of  the  mails,  the  arbitrary  seizure  and  im 
prisonment  of  opposing  partisans,  and  the  military  control  over  ballot- 
boxes,  courts,  and  people  answer  !  Shall  the  attempt  to  restore  the  States 
therefore  be  given  up  ?  Shall  our  armies  be  disbanded  in  the  presence  of 
rebellious  armies  ?  Not  at  all. 

To  restore  allegiance  and  inspire  nationality,  let  the  individual  rebel 
in  arms  against  us  be  reached  by  the  arm  of  our  soldier,  and  when  a  non- 
combatant  by  the  moderation  and  paternal  care  of  the  Government.  Let 
the  military  power  of  the  Confederates  be  broken.  Use  those  and  only 
those  severities  of  war  which  civilization  warrants,  and  which  will  make 
the  military  power  of  the  South  feel  the  power  of  the  nation  ;  but  do  not 
place  any  longer  in  their  hands  the  armament  of  despair.  They  have  had 
that  weapon  for  over  two  years.  Let  our  rulers  forego  their  ostracism  of 
the  misguided  citizen.  Let  an  amnesty  be  tendered  which  has  hope  in  its 
voice.  Give  forgiveness  to  the  erring,  hope  to  the  desponding,  protection 
to  the  halting,  and  allay  even  fancied  apprehensions  of  evil  by  the  measures 
of  moderation.  Thus,  by  confiscating  confiscation,  abolishing  abolition, 
and  cancelling  proclamations,  by  respecting  private  property  and  State 
rights,  prepare  that  friendliness  which  will  beget  confidence  in  the  individ 
ual  citizen.  Thus  will  minorities  be  transferred  into  majorities  South,  and 
the  States  discarding  the  rebel  authorities  betake  themselves  to  their  nor 
mal  and  proper  sphere1  under  the  old  order.  If  this  cannot  be  done  by  the 
present  rulers,  let  other  rulers  be  selected.  History  teaches  in  vain,  if  it 
does  not  contain  lessons  of  moderation  in  civil  wars.  How  were  the  feuds 
of  the  Grecian  federation  accommodated  ?  How  were  the  civil  wars  of 
Rome  ended?  How  were  the  intestine  troubles  of  England  assuaged? 
How  was  La  Vendee  pacified  by  the  generous  Hoche  ?  How  is  it  ever 
that  unity  of  empire  and  consentaneity  of  thought  are  induced  ?  How,  ex- 


392  EIGHT   TEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

cept  by  the  practice  of  that  mildness  which  cares  for  and  does  not  curse 
the  people  ?  When  Athens  undertook  to  succor  Mitylene  from  the  Persian 
grasp,  a  confederacy  was  formed  between  them.  Athens  used  her  power 
despotically.  Mitylene  revolted.  Athens  regrasped  her.  Perfidy  began. 
Destructive  malignants — the  Jacobins  of  that  day,  led  by  Cleon — insti 
gated  Athens  to  doom  the  citizens  of  Mitylene  to  death,  their  women  to 
servitude,  and  their  lands  to  desolation.  But  another  and  a  better  party 
arose,  who  strove  to  assuage  grievances,  prevent  rebellion,  and  save  the 
honor  and  unity  of  the  Republic.  "When  all  hopes  of  success  have  van 
ished,"  said  one  of  the  wiser  orators,  "  your  rebellious  subjects  will  never 
be  persuaded  to  return  to  their  duty ;  they  will  seek  death  in  the  field 
rather  than  await  it  from  the  hand  of  the  executioner.  Gathering  cour 
age  from  despair,  they  will  either  repel  your  assaults  or  fall  a  useless 
prey."  Wisdom  prevailed,  and  the  glory  of  the  Grecian  States  remained 
untarnished. 

But  a  more  conspicuous  analogy  to  our  own  revolution  is  to  be  found  in 
the  Marsian  war  of  Home.  The  M  arsians  claimed  the  privileges  of  Rome, 
whose  empire  they  had  enlarged  and  supported  by  their  arms.  They 
were  the  bravest  soldiers  of  the  empire,  but  they  were  denied  equal  rights 
in  the  State,  which  had  been  raised  to  eminence  by  their  prowess.  This 
war  consumed  above  300,000  of  the  youth  of  Italy.  Finally,  Rome  con 
quered  by  recruiting  her  strength  from  the  "  Border  States,"  to  whom  she 
communicated  her  privileges.  The  only  thing,  says  the  historian,  which 
saved  Rome,  was  the  fact  that  the  Latin  colonies  remained  faithful ;  for 
immediately  after  the  commencement  of  the  war,  the  Romans  made  up 
their  minds  to  reward  them  with  all  the  rights  of  Roman  citizens.  This 
decree  is  called  the  lex  Julia.  These  allies  were  won  by  something  more 
than  amnesty  of  hate.  The  grandest  empire  of  the  past  was  rescued  from 
internal  feuds  by  the  wise  moderation  of  its  statesmen. 

When  again  Rome  was  racked  by  civil  war,  the  wisest  statesman  of 
that  turbulent  and  ambitious  era,  Cicero,  summed  up  the  duty  of  the  pa 
triot  in  this  sentiment,  which  we  might  ponder  with  profit : 

"  I  shall  willingly  adopt  your  advice  and  show  every  lenity,  and  use  my  endeavors  to 
conciliate  Pompey.  Let  us  try  it ;  by  these  means,  we  can  regain  the  affections  of  all  peo 
ple,  and  render  our  victory  lasting.  Let  this  be  a  new  method  of  conquering,  to  fortify 
ourselves  with  kindness  and  liberality." 

The  closest  analogy  to  our  condition  is  to  be  found  in  the  English  civil 
war  beginning  in  1640.  The  English  people  are  our  ancestors.  They 
had  what  we  have,  a  similar  code  of  personal  freedom,  great  municipal 
independence,  and  a  popular  Parliament.  The  causes  of  the  war  were 
complicated  by  religious  controversy ;  but  the  questions  involved  concern 
ing  the  royal  prerogative  and  the  popular  privilege  are  closely  allied  to  our 
struggle.  We  know  how  the  first  Charles  lost  his  head ;  how  Cromwell's 
iron  hand  rescued,  for  a  time,  England  from  anarchy.  At  his  death, eleven 
military  governments,  under  Major  Generals,  like  Monk,  held  almost  abso 
lute  sway.  The  three  nations  were  represented  in  one  Parliament,  which, 
on  Cromwell's  death,  had  been  dissolved  for  indocility.  Conspirators  had 
been  punished  with  death.  Confiscations  were  common.  Yet  a  counter 
revolution  began.  Terror  began  it.  Cromwell's  grasp  was  relaxed.  His 
son,  wiser  than  most  men  in  power,  convoked  a  Parliament.  The  army 


CIVIL   WAR.  393 

still  reigned.  It  had  been  corrupted  by  power.  The  result  of  intrigues  for 
the  general  safety  was  a  union  of  the  Royalist  and  Presbyterian.  But  be 
fore  the  old  authority  of  the  Stuarts  could  be  restored,  one  element  was 
wanting.  It  was  supplied.  Party  vengeance  was  rampant  then  as  now, 
but  the  people's  representatives  considered  that  they  had  to  decide  between 
a  new  civil  war  and  a  restoration.  The  latter  was  represented  as  clement, 
unexacting,  prudent,  and  determined  to  adapt  itself  to  the  manners  and 
wants  of  the  time.  Then  came  the  famous  declaration  of  Charles  II. 
from  Breda.  It  removed  all  hesitation,  and  the  restoration  began.  The 
King  in  that  paper  declared  that  he  desired  to  compose  the  distraction 
and  confusion  of  his  kingdom,  to  assume  his  ancient  rights,  and  to  accord 
to  them  their  ancient  liberties,  without  further  "  blood-letting."  He  there 
fore  granted  an  amnesty  to  all  who  would  return  to  their  obedience.  He 
gave  his  kingly  word  that  "no  crime  whatsoever  committed  against  us  or 
our  royal  father  shall  ever  rise  in  judgment  to  the  least  endamagement  of 
them,  either  in  their  lives,  liberties,  or  estates  ;  we  desiring  and  ordaining 
that  henceforward  all  notes  of  discord,  separation,  and  difference  of  par 
ties  be  abolished."  He  conjured  them  to  a  PERFECT  UNION  for  the  reset 
tlement  of  all  rights,  under  a  free  parliament.  When  this  declaration  was 
read  in  parliament,  though  it  was  the  false  word  of  a  designing  tyrant,  yet 
the  restoration  of  the  second  Charles  was  voted  by  acclamation  !  It  was 
alleged  that  the  declaration  not  only  comprehended  the  motives  but  the 
conditions  of  the  recall.  Perhaps  the  people's  representatives  were  pre 
cipitate  in  not  first  settling  conditions  by  a  "  free  parliament."  But  the 
amnesty  and  declaration  were  none  the  less  powerful.  Nor  would  the 
same  sort  of  declaration  from  Abraham  Lincoln  be  less  powerful  to  re 
store  the  sovereign  States  to  their  old  allegiance,  especially  if  followed  by 
a  National  Convention  and  the  restoration  of  a  party  not  unfriendly  to  the 
entire  union  of  all  the  States,  with  their  "just  rights."  No  distrust  fol 
lowed  this  declaration  of  the  English  king.  He  came  to  England.  His 
journey  to  London  was  one  perpetual  fete— one  continued  shout  of  rejoic 
ing  !  Faction  ceased.  History  records  that  Cavaliers  were  reconciled 
with  Roundheads.  Exiles  showed  no  resentment  in  the  joy  of  their  re 
turn.  A  violent  reaction  against  revolution  began  ;  war  ceased  ;  and  the 
foundation  was  then  laid  for  the  permanent  stability  which  1688  gave  to 
England. 

On  the  contrary,  what  a  lesson  may  we  learn  from  the  connection  of 
Ireland  and  England,  and  the  policy  of  the  latter  in  striving  to  subjugate 
the  former !  From  the  time  of  the  first  and  second  Charles — under  all 
rules — discontent  and  warfare  has  prevailed.  The  union  purchased 
through  perfidy  and  fraud,  by  appeals  to  the  mercenary  motives  of  men, 
has  been  a  mockery.  When  StrafFord  ruled  Ireland,  he  placed  his  cap 
tains  and  officers  as  burgesses  in  Parliament,  who  "  swayed  between  the 
two  parties,"  and  thus  began  the  corruption  which  ended  in  Irish  subjuga 
tion.  In  spite  of  the  eloquence  of  Grattan  and  Plunkett,  Ireland  at 
length  became  a  dependency  of  the  British  crown.  True,  she  had  been 
despoiled  before  the  union.  From  the  time  when  the  Puritans  overran 
Ireland  to  exterminate  and  destroy,  sending  thousands  into  tropical  slav 
ery,  and  many  thousands  into  that  other  country  where  crime  breeds  no 
more  of  its  offspring,  down  to  the  first  of  January,  sixty-two  years  ago, 


394  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

when  the  imperial  standard,  floating  from  Dublin  Castle,  announced  to 
Ireland  the  depth  of  her  degradation,  and  from  that  period  to  the  present, 
there  has  been  no  union,  no  peace,  no  justice,  no  content  for  Ireland. 
That  union,  thus  misbegotten  of  force  and  fraud,  was  weakness  to  Eng 
land  and  ruin  to  Ireland.  In  one  rebellion  alone,  that  of  1798,  there  were 
20,000  loyal  lives  lost,  and  50,000  insurgents,  and  property  worth 
$15,000,000.  A  conspiracy  here,  a  plot  there,  a  rebellion  at  the  capital, 
a  rising  at  the  extremities,  public  waste,  private  impoverishment,  general 
corruption,  periodical  starvation,  political  turpitude,  and  national  bank 
ruptcy — these  are  the  features  of  national  thraldom  which  Ireland  presents 
for  our  warning,  when  we  talk  of  subjugation  and  confiscation.  How 
much  better  would  it  have  been  for  botli  countries,  had  the  sagacious  ad 
vice  of  Sydney  Smith  been  followed,  when  he  said  : 

"  How  easy  it  is  to  shed  human  blood  ;  how  easy  it  is  to  persuade  ourselves  that  it  is 
our  duty  to  do  so,  and  that  the  decision  has  cost  us  a  severe  struggle  ;  how  much,  in  all 
ages,  have  wounds,  and  shrieks,  and  tears  been  the  cheap  and  vulgar  resources  of  the 
rulers  of  mankind.  The  vigor  I  love  consists  in  finding  out  wherein  subjects  are  ag 
grieved,  in  relieving  them,  in  studying  the  temper  and  genius  of  a  people,  in  consulting 
their  prejudices,  iu  selecting  proper  persons  to  lead  and  manage  them  in  the  laborious, 
watchful,  and  difficult  task  of  increasing  public  happiness  by  allaying  each  particular  dis 
content." 

The  wiser  statesmen  of  England  once  learned  this  lesson.  They  strove 
to  apply  it  to  America  in  the  revolution  of  1776.  Every  argument  in 
favor  of  an  unrelenting  and  exterminating  policy  by  the  British  ministry 
was  used  and  acted  upon.  In  vain  Chatham,  Barre,  and  Burke  appealed. 
Chatham,  though  provoked  at  our  contumacy,  as  we  are  provoked  at  the 
conduct  of  the  South,  still  felt  that  provocation  could  no  longer  be  treated 
as  such  when  it  came  from  one  united  province,  and  when  it  was  sup 
ported  by  eleven  provinces  more.  Accordingly,  in  February,  1775,  be 
introduced  a  bill,  whose  conclusion  was :  "  So  shall  true  reconcilement 
avert  impending  calamity."  We  know  the  sequel ;  but  do  we  heed  the 
teaching?  When  in  1860  our  wiser  men  strove  to  avert  calamities  by 
true  reconciliation,  who  prevented  ?  Who  yet  stand  in  the  path  of  recon 
ciliation,  with  flaming  two-edged  sword,  barring  all  ingress  to  the  bless 
ings  of  peace?  Who  clamor  yet  for  a  dictatorial  regime?  Who  shout  for 
death  penalties,  outlawries,  forfeitures,  and  all  the  barbarous  schemes  of 
vulgar  despotism?  Or  who,  on  the  other  hand,  still  hope  for  victory 
without  reprisals  ;  success  without  the  tarnish  or  breach  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  equality  of  rights,  without  irresponsible  tyranny  ;  free  opinions 
freely  expressed — the  only  reward  which  a  Union  restored  can  grant, 
worthy  of  the  great  sacrifices  which  the  noble  soldiers  of  the  Republic 
have  made ! 

Let  us  have  done  with  juggling  amnesties  and  ambitious  schemes,  with 
philanthropic  ferocity  and  enforced  elections.  Under  no  such  policy, 
pitched  iu  the  key-note  of  the  President's  proclamation,  or  chanted  in  the 
mellifluous  tones  of  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  [Mr.  DAVIS],  can  the 
South  ever  be  held  in  honorable  alliance  and  harmony.  A  Government 
inspired  thus  would  be  out  of  all  relations  to  the  States  of  this  Union.  It 
would  have  neither  "  the  nerves  of  sensation  which  convey  intelligence  to 
the  intellect  of  the  body  politic,  nor  the  ligaments  and  muscles  which  hold 


CIVIL  WAS.  395 

its  parts  together  and  move  them  in  harmony."  It  would  be  as  Russia 
is  to  Poland,  as  England  to  Ireland,  the  government  of  one  people  by  an 
other.  It  would  never  succeed  with  our  race.  It  would  never  succeed 
witli  a  territory  whose  configurations  are  so  peculiar  and  whose  interests 
are  so  varied  as  ours. 

No  citizenship  is  worth  granting  to  those  who  dishonor  themselves  to 
receive  it.  No  common  bond  of  allegiance  or  nationality  is  possible  on 
such  terms.  Mean  and  degrading  conditions  which  unfit  the  citizen 
for  manly  equality  are  more  despicable  than  rebellion.  You  cannot  expel 
the  poison  of  sedition  by  adding  to  its  virulence.  You  cannot  draw  men 
from  crime  by  stimulating  the  motive  which  led  to  it.  Not  thus — not 
thus  were  the  early  insurrections  in  our  country  assuaged.  True,  these 
rebellions  were  pigmies  to  this  gigantic  outbreak,  but  the  principle  of  their 
settlement  is  eternal.  It  is  the  very  gospel  of  God  ;  the  very  love  which 
saves  mankind.  -  Inspired  thus,  what  might  be  done  if  a  wise  and  saga 
cious  Executive  should  extend  the  same  beneficent  policy  to  the  factions 
which  are  bleeding  our  beloved  land  ! 

Will  our  rulers  heed  these  lessons  in  time?  While  they  return  to  the 
purpose  of  the  war,  as  declared  by  General  McClellan,  for  the  sole  great 
object  of  the  restoration  of  the  unity  of  the  nation,  the  preservation  of  the 
Constitution,  and  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  ;  and  while  they  conduct  it, 
as  he  declared  it  should  be  carried  on,  in  consonance  with  the  principles 
of  humanity  and  civilization,  abjuring  all  desire  of  conquest,  all  projects 
of  revenge,  and  all  schemes  of  mock  philanthropy,  let  them  remember, 
also,  that  all  our  labors  to  rebuild  the  old  fabric  will  fail,  unless  out  of  the 
"  brotherly  dissimilitudes  "  of  section  and  interest,  we  evoke  the  spirit  of 
fraternity,  which  has  its  true  similitude  in  the  perfect  spirit  of  Christian 
fellowship  ! 

Pursuing  such  a  course,  we  may,  like  the  fugitive  prophet  upon  Mount 
Horeb,  approach  and  interrogate  DEITY  itself  in  our  despondency  and  for 
our  deliverance.  And  though,  like  him,  we  may  hear  the  roar  of  the 
wave  and  the  whirlwind  of  war,  though  we  may  tremble  amidst  the  earth 
quake  of  its  wrath,  and  though  God  may  not  be  in  the  storm,  the  wind, 
or  the  earthquake  ;  yet  .we  may  find  Him  in  the  still,  small  voice — sweet, 
clear,  electric, 

"  Speaking  of  peace,  speaking  of  love, 
Speaking  as  angels  speak  above," 

whose  depth  and  sweetness  are  not  those  of  tempestuous  force  or  elemental 
strife,  but  soft  as  an  angel's  lute,  or  a  seraph's  song,  promising  redress 
for  wrong  and  deliverance  from  calamity.  Horeb  stands  as  a  monumental 
lesson  to  our  rulers  forever,  for  it  stands  amidst  the  shadows  of  Sinai — 
speaking  the  still,  small  voice  of  divine  conciliation,  amidst  the  thunders 
of  the  law  and  the  forces  of  physical  nature  !  I  wait  for  that  voice  to  be 
spoken.  My  soul  waiteth  for  it  "more  than  they  that  watch  for  the 
morning  ;  I  say,  more  than  they  that  watch  for  the  MORNING  ! " 


YII. 
CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY. 

NATIONAL    CONVENTION AMENDMENTS     BY    VIRTUE     OF     STATE   RIGHTS — 

MADISON,  HAMILTON.  AND  CALHOUN   CITED HISTORY    OF    THE   CLAUSE 

IN   THE    CONSTITUTIONAL     CONVENTION JUDGE    STORY*S    OPINION IR 
REVOCABLE  LAWS USE  OF  THE  POWER  TO  AMEND  AS  COMPROMISES  IN 

1860— CHECKS  AGAINST  THE   ABUSE  OF  THE  POWER DANGERS  IN  TIME 

OF  WAR  OF  RADICAL  CHANGES INEXPEDIENCY  OF  THE  AMENDMENT. 

THE  debate  on  the  question  of  the  power  to  amend  the  Constitution, 
so  as  to  abolish  slavery,  was  unusually  interesting.  It  was  so,  because 
there  was  a  direct  issue,  which  gave  no  room  for  discursive  discussion. 
It  illustrated,  moreover,  what  is  seldom  shown  by  Congressional  debate,  a 
progress,  during  the  debate,  toward  correct  opinions.  Before  the  debate 
concluded  very  few  upon  either  side  denied  the  unlimited  power  to  amend  ; 
unlimited,  save  by  the  exceptions  mentioned,  and  save  by  the  mode  pre 
scribed  in  the  Constitution.  This  mode  is  the  only  safeguard  against  un 
wise  amendments.  It  is  ample,  however,  inasmuch  as  no  amendment 
can  be  made  except  by  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  Congress  and 
three-fourths  of  the  Legislatures  of  the  States.  If  these  be  not  sufficient 
guards  against  unreasonable  amendment,  what  other  or  better  prevention 
have  we  against  violent  revolution  ? 

The  part  taken  by  me  in  the  discussion  was  in  some  sort  compelled : 
1st,  by  a  desire  to  be  consistent  with  my  previous  votes  given  in  1860-'61, 
when  amendments  concerning  slavery  were  common ;  and  2d,  by  a  col 
loquy  in  which  I  engaged,  where  I  committed  myself  to  the  doctrine  above 
stated.  On  the  10th  of  January,  1865,  while  Mr.  KASSON  was  speaking, 
Mr.  MALLORY  asked  whether,  by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  we 
could  so  change  the  government  as  to  convert  it  into  a  monarchy,  an 
aristocracy,  or  a  despotism.  Mr.  KASSON  avoided  the  question  ;  but  with 
his  permission,  I  answered  it  by  saying :  "  I  carry  the  Democratic  doc- 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING   SLAVEEY.  397 

trine  to  such  an  extent,  that  I  maintain  that  the  people,  speaking  through 
three-fourths  of  the  States,  in  pursuance  of  the  mode  prescribed  by  the 
Constitution,  have  the  right  to  amend  it  in  every  particular,  except  the 
two  particulars  specified  in  that  instrument ;  that  this  includes  the  right 
to  erect  a  monarchy ;  to  make,  if  you  please,  the  King  of  Dahomey  our 
king."  This  expression  excited  surprise  upon  both  sides  of  the  House. 
It  was  animadverted  upon  by  Mr.  PENDLETON  and  by  others,  who  had 
given  much  study  to  the  question.  But  as  the  debate  progressed,  this 
power  to  amend  became  the  fixed  opinion  of  a  majority,  even  of  those 
who  thought  it  then  inexpedient  to  use  the  power.  Mr.  BOUTVVELL  held 
the  power  to  be  limited  only  by  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution.  Mr. 
THAYER,  thereupon,  argued  that  that  was  equivalent  to  saying  there  are 
no  limitations,  which  was  his  own  position.  Mr.  DAWES,  grasping  the 
question  comprehensively  at  once,  argued  that  since  the  preamble  was 
submitted  to  three-fourths  of  the  States,  they  were  the  law-makers  and 
law-expounders,  who  could  as  well  alter  the  preamble  as  any  other  part 
of  the  instrument ;  that  it  was  competent  for  them,  as  a  tribunal  from 
which  there  was  no  appeal,  to  say  that  any  thing,  save  the  limitations  pre 
scribed  by  the  instrument  itself,  does  or  does  not  contribute  to  the  ends 
set  forth  in  the  preamble,  even  to  the  extent  of  permitting  a  man  of 
foreign  birth  to  be  chosen  President — even  the  King  of  Dahomey  himself — 
with  which  Mr.  THAYER  and  others  agreed.  This  occurred  subsequent 
to  my  speech,  which  was  delivered  on  the  12th  of  January,  1865. 

It  was  incomprehensible  to  some,  that,  admitting  the  power  to 
amend,  I  did  not  vote  to  submit  the  amendment.  I  had,  as  will  be  per 
ceived,  left  myself  free  to  vote  for  the  amendment,  in  case  its  passage  would 
not  interfere  with  any  attempts  at  negotiation.  I  had  several  interviews 
with  party  friends,  at  my  room,  with  that  view.  I  was  anxious,  as  a 
Democrat,  and  with  a  view  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  party  I  cherished, 
to  drive  this  question,  which  had  become  abstract  by  the  death  of  slavery 
through  powder  and  ball,  from  the  political  arena.  Many  agreed  with 
me,  whose  votes  were  recorded  with  mine  against  the  amendment.  I 
fully  intended,  when  I  came  to  the  House,  at  noon  of  the  last  day  of  Jan 
uary,  when  the  vote  was  taken,  to  cast  my  vote  for  the  amendment ;  for  I 
had  said  publicly  and  privately,  that  if  all  hope  of  negotiation  had  failed, 
and  the  South  stood  upon  its  independence,  and  the  people  were  freeing 
their  negroes  for  soldiers,  I  would  not  stop  to  consider  further.  The 
amendment  would  no  longer  be  a  block  in  the  path  of  reconciliation  and 
union.  I  had  been  advised  by  high  officials,  that  no  further  negotiations 
were  possible ;  that  so  Mr.  BLAIR,  sen.,  had  reported  from  Richmond, 
whence  he  had  just  come.  But  on  arriving  at  the  hall  of  the  House  at 


EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

half-past  twelve,  I  learned  that  commissioners  were  actually  waiting  to 
be  conducted  over  the  lines.  These  were  Messrs.  CAMPBELL,  HUNTER,  and 
STEPHENS.  I  sent  to  Mr.  ASHLEY  to  know  if  this  were  true.  He  in 
quired  of  Mr.  NICOLAY,  the  President's  private  secretary,  who  was  pres 
ent  in  the  hall,  who  declared  that  he  knew  of  no  such  commission.  I 
begged  Mr.  ASHLEY,  as  my  vote  depended  on  that  fact,  to  inquire  of  the 
President.  He  wrote  him  a  note,  to  which  the  President,  about  half-past 
one  o'clock,  responded,  that  he  '•  knew  of  no  such  commission  or  nego 
tiation."  This  was  signed  "A.  L."  It  was  shown  to  me.  I  however 
made  further  inquiries,  and  satisfied  myself  that  either  the  President  was 
mistaken  or  was  ignorant  of  what  was  transpiring  at  General  GRANT'S 
headquarters.  It  was  upon  this  information,  which  I  obtained  from 
other  than  official  sources,  that  I  voted.  It  proved  to  be  correct  informa 
tion.  Whether  my  vote  was  correct  or  not,  it  was  given  upon  the  belief 
that  in  the  negotiations  then  about  to  be  begun  at  once,  this  amendment 
would  prove  an  insurmountable  obstacle  to  peace  and  union.  Weighing 
in  one  scale  the  dead  body  of  slavery,  which  was  to  be  abolished  by  this 
amendment ;  and  in  the  other,  peace  and  union,  and  these  latter,  too, 
without  slavery — could  I  do  any  thing  else  than  doubt  the  wisdom  of  an 
amendment  which  would  postpone  peace  and  imperil  the  Union  ?  But  the 
speech,  which  I  matured  in  advance  of  these  hurrying  events,  is  the  test 
by  which  my  motive  and  judgment  are  to  be  tried.  I  submit  it  to  the 
reader : 

Mr.  SPEAKER:  When  we  left  these  halls  last  year,  there  was  a 
prospect  that  the  administration  of  the  Government  would  have  been 
changed  by  the  election.  The  political  conventions  of  the  two  parties  met. 
The  party  of  the  Administration  made  this  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
a  part  of  their  creed.  They  went  before  the  people  claiming  the  power 
to  abolish  slavery  by  constitutional  amendment.  Nowhere  did  the  oppo 
site  party  take  ground  against  the  power ;  everywhere  they  took  ground 
against  its  exercise.  The  convention  which  mot  at  Chicago  adopted  their 
creed.  It  called  for  a  cessation  of  hostilities,  but  with  one  view,  a  na 
tional  convention,  in  order  to  reestablish  union.  Not  giving  up  the  prin 
ciples  laid  down  in  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798  and 
1799,  when  moved  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  LONG]  in  the  convention,  which, 
rightly  considered,  constituted  a  main  foundation  of  its  political  creed,  it 
laid  them  on  the  table  on  my  own  motion,  as  abstractions  unsuited  to  the 
demands  of  the  agonized  country.  Regarding  peace  as  the  great  practical 
need  of  the  hour,  the  convention  waived  all  other  questions  to  reach  that. 
How?  By  the  Constitution,  in  its  fifth  article,  which  provides  that  a 
national  convention  shall  be  called  for  proposing  amendments  to  the  Con 
stitution.  This  proposition  of  the  convention  was  at  once  our  weakness 
and  our  strength :  our  weakness  when  misunderstood  by  the  people,  our 
strength  when  rightly  interpreted.  My  colleague  [Mr.  PENDLETON]  ac- 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING   SLAVERY.  399 

cepted  that  platform.  In  casting  my  vote  for  him,  I  knew  that  he  in 
dorsed  it.  He  indorses  it  yet.  If  he  had  been  elected  to  that  office, 
which  he  would  have  graced  so  well,  we  might  to-day  have  been  appeal 
ing  to  Legislatures,  North  and  South,  and  not  in  vain  to  two-thirds  of 
them,  to  call  the  convention  at  the  will  of  the  people.  The  North  would 
have  yielded  and  the  South  would  not  have  held  back.  That  my  colleague 
and  myself  well  know.  In  that  august  assembly  the  distinguished  men 
from  both  sections  would  have  been  present.  What  would  have  been  the 
scope  of  their  action  ?  What  the  subject  of  their  debates  ?  Need  I  ask  ? 
It  would  have  been  the  settlement  of  all  grievances,  North  and  South ; 
questions  of  debt,  doubtless ;  questions  of  guarantee  to  State  and  muni 
cipal  rights,  doubtless ;  but  beyond  doubt,  this  vexata  questio  of  slavery, 
this  tcterrima  causa  belli,  and  the  agitations  and  legislation  growing  there 
from. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  read  this  morning,  with  what  truth  I  know  not,  that  a 
commissioner  is  now  in  Richmond  with  the  confidence  and  assent  of  the 
Administration,  meeting,  perhaps,  a  commissioner  on  the  part  of  the  Con 
federate  authorities  ;  and  the  rumor  is  that  they  have  agreed  to  call  a 
national  convention.  [Sensation.]  I  know  not  whether  there  is  any 
thing  in  it.  My  friend  from  New  York  who  sits  behind  me  [Mr.  FER 
NANDO  WOOD]  says  that  there  is  not,  and  he  is  presumed  to  know  more 
on  that  subject  than  I  do.  [Laughter.]  If,  in  the  providence  of  God, 
such  a  convention  were  called  or  were  now  in  session,  and  this  question 
came  up  in  a  full  representation  of  all  the  States,  who  would  think  of  dis 
puting  its  power  to  modify,  change,  alter,  and  abolish,  either  at  once  or 
gradually,  by  constitutional  amendment,  the  institution  of  slavery?  Not 
a  man.  While,  therefore,  in  a  state  of  war,  and  with  nearly  half  the 
States  in  default  and  absent,  I  may  deny  the  wisdom  of  acting  either  by 
the  one  mode  or  the  other,  pointed  out  for  the  amendment  of  the  Consti 
tution  in  this  particular — I  will  not  deny  a  power  so  essential  to  peace, 
safety,  and  sovereignty.  No  ingenious  refinement  or  dazzling  eloquence 
shall  lead  me  to  deny  a  power  which  may  yet  prove  our  salvation,  when 
wisely  used.  Who  upon  this  side  asks  me  to  shut  the  door  in  the  face  of 
such  a  saving  power  ?  Let  him  remember  that  while  the  power  may  now 
threaten  to  destroy,  the  power  to  save  is  forever  bound  up  with  it.  The 
power  that  can  create,  the  same  can  destroy.  Under  the  ribs  of  death  at 
the  last  moment,  this  power  may  be  invoked  to  create  the  heart  and  soul 
of  union,  and  that,  too,  by  the  array  of  States  in  their  sovereign  capacity, 
as  modified  by  their  granted  powers. 

Do  you  tell  me  that  such  sovereignty  can  only  guarantee,  but  cannot 
destroy  property,  either  in  man  or  beast,  in  land  or  house  ?  If  a  conven 
tion  of  States  can  take  jurisdiction  to  protect  property  it  can  to  destroy. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  States  individually  can  do  this.  If  by  the  Constitu 
tion  they  as  States,  all  consenting  to  it,  have  provided  a  mode  of  doing  it, 
what  matters  it  whether  it  is  done  by  them  in  their  individual  capacity  or 
in  their  conventional  capacity?  Whenever  two-thirds  here  agree  to  pro 
pose  amendments  and  three-fourths  shall  ratify,  either  by  convention  or 
Legislature,  the  proposition  is  "  a  part  of  this  Constitution."  It  is  the 
States  that  do  this  in  the  first  instance,  all  according  in  making  the  amend 
ment  clause  ;  again  by  their  convention  in  proposing ;  and  again  by  rati- 


400  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

fying.  Therefore  I  join  my  colleague  in  singing  hosanna  to  that  principle 
of  our  government  just  denounced  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr. 
SMITH]  as  so  nefarious — the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  I  see  here  not 
one  monster  iron  crown,  like  that  of  Lombardy,  compelling,  as  from  an 
omnipotent  sceptre,  the  subject  States,  but  each  of  the  States  making  for 
itself  a  fundamental  law  or  organic  compact.  Even  by  this  amendatory 
clause  the  States  pluck  from  their  "  round  of  sovereginty  "  each  a  crown 
jewel  to  form  and  decorate  the  Federal  diadem.  All  the  States,  sover 
eign  in  their  reserved  spheres,  drop  their  sceptres  before  the  Federal  em 
blem,  in  all  cases  where,  as  in  amendments,  the  Constitution  is  declared 
the  "  supreme  law  of  the  land." 

Tell  me  not  that  this  power  is  dangerous  when  left  unlimited  in  the 
Federal  head.  All  power  is  dangerous.  It  tends  to  abuse.  This  is  no 
argument  against  its  existence,  only  against  its  exercise.  My  colleague 
[Mr.  C.  A.  WHITE]  holds  that  the  States  can  make  him — now  a  free 
white  man — a  slave  by  local  law.  Is  there  a  more  dangerous  power 
when  exercised  ?  It  is  worse  than  the  power  to  create  or  destroy  property. 
But  he  admits  the  power,  if  its  place  of  lodgment  is  only  local.  If,  then, 
the  States  can  do  this  by  local  law,  can  they  not  do  it  in  any  other  way 
they  choose  ?  They  can  by  the  same  power  make  him  again  a  freeman. 
Nay,  more  ;  there  may  be  possibly  a  greater  guarantee  in  an  enlightened 
land  against  his  being  made  a  slave  by  the  votes  of  the  States,  all  con 
voked  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  than  in  the  separate 
action  of  the  States  unassisted  in  their  organic  work  by  the  prudence  of 
their  brother  States. 

My  colleague  [Mr.  C.  A.  WHITE]  says  the  States  are  unlimited  and 
absolute  in  their  sovereignty,  and  therefore  the  Federal  Government  is  not 
sovereign.  I  bid  him  beware.  Where  does  this  doctrine  lead?  May 
not  the  States  in  their  unlimited  and  sovereign  convention,  deriving  their 
powers  from  the  original  consent  of  all,  give  up  portions  of  their  sov 
ereignty,  modify  it,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  holds,  by  the  amendatory  clause? 
May  they  not  thus  speak  the  most  potential  voice  of  the  people  of  the 
States  in  all  affairs  ?  It  is  the  people  of  all  the  States  who  consent  to 
amending  the  Constitution,  and  by  a  mode  which  allows  two-thirds  of 
both  Houses  to  propose  the  amendment,  which  is  to  be  sent  to  the  Legis 
latures  for  the  ratification  of  three-fourths.  First  and  last  and  all  the 
time,  the  States  are  the  constituents  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  as 
such,  and  by  their  State  action,  they  can  create  and  they  can  destroy.  I  am 
of  the  State-rights  school  so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned,  and  of  the 
strictest  sect. 

Mr.  FERN  AX  DO  WOOD.  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  Ohio  to  the  language  of  James  Madison  in  the  "  Federalist "  : 

"  That  useful  alterations  will  be  suggested  by  experience,  could  pot  but  be  foreseen. 
It  was  requisite,  therefore,  that  a  mode  for  introducing  them  should  be  provided.  The 
mode  preferred  by  the  Convention  seems  to  be  stamped  with  every  mark  of  propriety.  It 
guards  equally  against  that  extreme  facility  which  would  render  the  Constitution  too  muta 
ble,  and  that  extreme  difficulty  which  might  perpetuate  its  discovered  faults.  It  more 
over  equally  enables  the  General  and  the  State  Governments  to  originate  the  amendment 
of  errors  as  they  may  be  pointed  out  by  the  experience  on  one  side  or  on  the  other." 

Again,  sir,  Hamilton  says : 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT    ABOLISHED   SLAVERY.  401 

"  For  my  own  part,  I  acknowledge  a  thorough  conviction  that  any  amendments  which 
may,  upon  mature  consideration,  be  thought  useful,  will  be  applicable  to  the  organization 
of  the  Government,  not  to  the  mass  of  its  powers  ;  and  on  this  account  alone  I  think  there 
is  no  weight  in  the  observations  just  stated." 

Mr.  Cox.  The  only  comment  I  make  upon  the  quotations  of  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  is  this :  Madison  in  the  Convention  opposed 
and  voted  against  the  proposition  of  Roger  Sherman  to  except  all  internal 
police  of  the  States  from  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution.  The  quo 
tation  is  in  harmony  with  his  vote.  For  he  only  holds,  as  Judge  Story 
holds,  that  the  mode  of  amendment  sufficiently  guards  the  Constitution 
against  mutability;  and  that  the  "amendment  of  errors"  cannot  be 
made  without  the  concurrence  of  Federal  and  State  Governments,  in  Con 
gress  and  in  State  Legislatures.  He  did  not  expect  that  fundamental 
changes  would  be  made — only  "  alterations  ;  "  but  he  does  not  deny  that 
there  is  any  limit  to  the  power.  This  is  no  authority  against  the  power, 
but  an  argument  for  it.  Mr.  Madison  holds  to  the  power  because  he  be 
lieves  if  cannot  be  abused,  owing  to  the  restraints  placed  by  the  Conven 
tion  upon  its  exercise.  Further,  I  know,  from  having  read  the  private 
correspondence  of  Mr.  Madison,  published  in  this  city  by  Mr.  McGuire, 
for  private  distribution,  that  he  always  held  to  the  idea  that  the  only  mode 
by  which  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  or  a  secession  of  the  States,  could  ever 
be  legally  accomplished  was  by  this  organic  and  all-powerful  clause  of 
amendment.  He  laid  it  down  so  broadly  that  it  would  even  cover  the  re 
mark  I  made  the  other  day,  considered  so  extravagant,  that  we  might  by 
the  fiat  of  the  States  even  build  a  monarchy  upon  the  ruins  of  republican 
ism. 

As  to  the  quotation  from  Mr.  Hamilton,  I  do  not  see  its  application. 
I  am  not  prepared,  without  reading  it  carefully,  to  make  a  fitting  comment. 
It  strikes  me  that  it  does  not  limit  the  power  of  amendment.  It  is  rather 
the  expression  of  a  strong  conviction  that  all  amendments  will  be  and 
ought  to  be  applied  to  "  the  organization  of  the  Government,  not  to  the 
mass  of  its  powers,"  and  that  none  others  would  be  useful.  I  quite  agree 
with  the  opinion.  Now,  with  all  respect,  I  appeal  to  my  friend  from  New 
York,  who  belongs  to  the  strict  State-rights  school  of  politics,  and  even 
stands  so  perpendicularly  that  many  people  believe  that  he  leans  back 
ward,  to  consider  the  view  of  Mr.  Calhoun  upon  this  subject.  I  am  sorry 
my  friend  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  DEMING],  who  has  the  volume,  has  not 
brought  it  here  this  morning.  The  quotation  will  be  found  in  his  sixth 
volume,  page  36.  In  1828  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  asked  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Calhoun  upon  this  and  kindred  subj  ects.  In  that  declara 
tion  of  political  power,  drawn  up  for  his  State,  he  teaches  that  the  people 
of  that  State  by  adopting  the  Federal  Constitution  had  modified  its  origi 
nal  right  of  sovereignty,  and  that  by  its  consent  in  becoming  a  member 
of  the  Union,  that  power  had  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  three-fourths 
of  the  States,  in  whom,  he  said,  the  highest  power  known  to  the  Constitu 
tion  exists.  I  do  not  give  the  quotation  with  that  length  and  that  empha 
sis  which  belong  to  it,  but  I  will  insert  it  in  my  remarks  for  the  edification 
of  my  friend,  who  is  a  most  earnest  disciple  of  John  C.  Calhoun  : 

"  In  order  to  have  a  full  and  clear  conception  of  our  institutions  it  will  be  proper  to 
remark  that  there  is,  in  our  system,  a  striking  contrast  between  government  and  sov- 
26 


4:02  EIGHT    YEARS   EN    CONGRESS. 

ereigntv.  The  separate  governments  of  the  several  States  are  vested  in  their  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial  departments,  while  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the  people  of  the 
several  States  who  created  it ;  but  by  an  express  provision  of  the  Constitution  it  may  be 
amended  or  changed  be  three-fourths  of  the  States,  and  thus  each  State,  by  assenting  to 
the  Constitution  with  this  provision,  has  modified  its  original  right  as  a  sovereign,  of 
making  its  individual  consent  necessary  to  any  change  in  its  political  condition  ;  and  by 
becoming  a  member  of  this  Union  has  placed  this  important  power  in  the  hands  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  States,  in  whom  the  highest  power  known  to  the  Constitution  resides." 

This  extract  is  only  strengthened  by  the  context.  I  call  on  my  friends 
of  the  State-rights  school  not  to  outdo  their  masters,  but  if  they  would 
save  the  most  valuable  and  most  abused  principle  of  our  Government,  not 
to  strain  its  intent,  and  thus  destroy  it  altogether. 

I  am  sustained  in  my  view  by  the  history  of  the  convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution.  Was  this  question  considered  by  the  conven 
tion?  It  was.  In  Elliot's  Debates,  volume  five,  page  357,  it  appears 
that  General  Pinckney  "reminded  the  convention  that  if  the  committee 
should  faiJ  to  insert  some  security  to  the  Southern  States  against  ayi  eman 
cipation  of  slaves  and  taxes  on  imports,  he  should  be  bound  by  his  duty  to 
his  State  to  vote  against  their  report."  Again,  when  the  report  was  made, 
this  clause  of  amendment  came  in  on  the  15th  of  September.  It  was  dis 
cussed  by  Sherman,  Morris,  Gerry,  Mason,  and  Madison.  Mr.  Sherman 
did  not  like  the  mode  proposed,  for  fear  it  would,  by  three-fourths  of  the 
States,  do  things  fatal  to  particular  States,  as  abolishing  them  altogether, 
or  depriving  them  of  their  equality.  Colonel  Mason  thought  it  dangerous 
and  exceptionable.  Mr.  Madison  defended  the  present  clause.  Mr.  Sher 
man  moved  to  annex  to  the  end  of  the  article  a  further  proviso,  "  that  no 
State  shall,  without  its  consent,  be  affected  in  its  internal  police,  or  de 
prived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate."  Mr.  Madison  opposed  it. 
It  was  lost — three  to  eight.  Then  Mr.  Sherman  moved  to  strike  out  the 
fifth  article  altogether.  That  too  failed.  The  article  was  then  further 
amended  by  the  existing  clause,  that  "  no  State  shall  be  deprived  of  its 
equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate."  (Elliot,  volume  five,  page  352.)  Thus  it 
passed.  The  argument  from  contemporary  history  is  therefore  conclu 
sive.  The  intention  of  the  creator  is  the  best  criterion  as  to  the  charac 
ter  of  the  creature.  Here  we  have  it,  not  only  implied  by  the  absence 
of  an  exception,  but  by  the  positive  disallowance  of  it  by  the  convention. 
That  intention  was  to  limit  the  amending  clause  only  in  two  particulars. 
This  one  before  the  House  is  neither  of  the  two. 

My  opinion  on  this  matter  of  construction  is  drawn  from  unexception 
able  teaching ;  not  alone  from  Judge  Story  ;  not  alone  from  Calhoun. 
No  man  can  teach  me  a  different  lesson  until  I  forget  the  history  of  the 
Constitution.  The  platform  of  my  party,  and  the  philosophy  of  its  found 
ers,  teach  me  the  same  thing.  In  the  language  of  that  platform  of  many 
years,  adopted  last  at  Cincinnati  and  Baltimore,  I  "  maintain  before  the 
world  this  great  moral  element  in  a  form  of  government,  springing  from 
and  upheld  by  the  popular  will,  which  seeks  not  to  palsy  the  will  of  the 
constituent ; "  and  that  is,  that  the  Federal  Government  is  one  of  limited 
power,  derived  solely  from  the  Constitution  and  the  grants  of  power  made 
therein  ;  that  its  powers  ought  to  be  strictly  construed  ;  and  if  upon  such 
construction  found  therein,  to  be  strictly  pursued  with  all  the  vigor  of 
their  constitutional  sanctions.  Finding  this  clause  of  amendment  in  the 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING   SLAVERY.  403 

Constitution,  with  no  doubt  upon  its  features,  I  must  bow  to  its  supremacy. 
Even  though  I  may  regard  it  as  clear  and  unquestionable,  and  admit  the 
power  in  its  fullest  expression,  I  may  yet  claim  that  its  exercise  is  dan 
gerous  and  inexpedient.  If  it  were  a  doubtful  power,  I  would  not  think«of 
exercising  it ;  but  since  it  is  clearly  granted,  I  shall  consult  my  own  judg 
ment  upon  the  merits  of  the  proposed  amendment.  If,  then,  it  be  an  exer 
cise  of  an  admitted  power,  why  not  confine  the  discussion  to  proving  the 
unwisdom  of  its  exercise  ?  For  two  reasons  : 

I.  I  believe  that  the  argument  from  lack  of  power  to  amend,  is  weaker 
than  the  argument  against  its  expediency.  It  is  a  settled  rule  of  logic 
that  a  fallacy,  used  in  a  good  cause,  gives  your  opponent  the  advantage  of 
apparent  success  in  the  conclusion  of  the  argument.  I  do  not  propose  to 
give  this  advantage  to  the  advocates  of  this  measure.  Believing  that  the 
power  exists,  I  am  bound  to  follow  the  example  of  my  colleague  [Mr. 
PENDLETON],  and  place  my  vote  upon  the  reasons  which  weigh  most  in 
my  judgment.  I  find  that  the  learned  commentator,  Judge  Story,  re 
gards  this  power  of  amendment  as  both  useful  and  important.  His  rea 
sons  are  radical.  He  says,  page  678  : 

"  It  is  obvious  that  no  human  government  can  ever  be  perfect ;  and  that  it  is  impossi 
ble  to  foresee  or  guard  against  all  the  exigencies  which  may,  in  different  ages,  require  dif 
ferent  adaptations  and  modifications  of  powers  to  suit  the  various  necessities  of  the  peo 
ple.  A  Government  forever  changing  and  changeable,  is  indeed  in  a  state  bordering  upon 
anarchy  and  confusion.  A  Government  which,  in  its  own  organization,  provides  no  means 
of  change,  but  assumes  to  be  fixed  and  unalterable,  must  after  a  while  become  wholly  un- 
suited  to  the  circumstances  of  the  nation ;  and  it  will  either  degenerate  into  a  despotism, 
or,  by  the  pressure  of  its  inequalities,  bring  on  a  revolution.  It  is  wise,  therefore,  in  every 
Government,  and  especially  in  a  republic,  to  provide  means  for  altering  and  improving  the 
fabric  of  Government  as  time  and  experience  or  the  new  phases  of  human  affairs  may 
render  proper,  in  order  to  promote  the  happiness  and  safety  of  the  people.  The  great 
principle  to  be  sought  is  to  make  the  changes  practicable,  but  not  too  easy ;  to  secure  due 
deliberation  and  caution  ;  and  to  follow  experience  rather  than  to  open  a  way  for  experi 
ments  suggested  by  mere  speculation  or  theory." 

Upon  this  philosophy  he  considers  this  power  of  amendment ;  finds  in 
its  mode  of  exercise  sufficient  checks  against  its  abuse  ;  but  even  if  abused, 
he  finds  that  it  is  better  as  a  measure  of  safety  than  if  the  powers  were 
limited.  In  his  judgment  there  are  no  limitations  upon  its  exercise  ex 
cept  those  specified ;  and  the  claim  to  abolish  the  internal  policy  of  a 
State  is  not  an  exception.  These  reasons  for  the  clause  of  amendment 
are  the  reasons  why  the  power  is  so  extensive.  The  mode  of  amendment 
was  thought  to  be  so  guarded  as  to  prevent  any  unrepublican  or  monarch 
ical  amendments  which  would  substantially  change  the  genius  and  scope 
of  the  federal  system  of  delegated  powers.  It  is,  nevertheless,  unlimited, 
except  in  the  two  particulars  specified. 

This  power  of  unlimited  amendment  is  an  element  of  democracy.  It 
has  been  the  characteristic  of  our  democratic  institutions  that  our  ancestry, 
however  prudent  and  wise,  did  not  tie  the  hands  of  the  children  nor  shackle 
their  liberties  by  laws  so  irrevocable  that  no  mode  of  change  was  allowed. 
In  our  State  constitutions  this  power  of  amendment  has  been  and  is  be 
ing  exercised  almost  every  decade.  Why  ?  On  the  principle  of  Jeremy 
Bentham  (Benthamiana,  page  220),  that  at  each  point  of  time  the  sover 
eign  for  the  time  possesses  such  means  as  the  nature  of  the  case  affords, 


EIGHT   YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

for  making  himself  acquainted  with  the  exigencies  of  his  own  time. 
With  reference  to  the  future  he  has  no  such  means.  Bentham  thus  argues 
against  ihe  transfer  of  the  Government  from  those  who  possess  the  best 
means  to  those  who  possess  the  least  means  of  information.  Shall  the 
past  century  rule  the  present?  No,  not  unless  they  are  better  informed 
or  feel  more  interest  in  the  future  generation  than  their  own.  Why  should 
we  of  the  nineteenth  century  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  twentieth?  Why 
should  the  dead  forever  rule  the  living  ?  Is  a  tyranny  inexorable  because 
it  is  established  in  the  past?  Is  a  law  immutable  because  made  by  the 
fathers  ?  If  the  law  be  despotic,  who  then  shall  reverse  it  ?  From  these  gen 
eral  principles  I  deduce  the  reason  why  I  choose  to  argue  this  amendment 
rather  upon  its  unwisdom  than  upon  the  lack  of  power  to  make  it.  "  It 
is  only,"  Mr.  Bentham  says,  "  when  the  law  is  mischievous  that  an  argu 
ment  of  this  stamp  will  be  employed  to  support  it.  Suppose  a  law  a  good 
one,  it  will  be  supported,  not  by  absurdity  and  deception,  but  from  its  own 
excellency.  A  declaration  that  this  or  that  law  is  immutable,  so  far  from 
being  a  proper  argument  to  enforce  its  permanency,  is  rather  a  presump 
tion  that  such  a  law  has  some  mischievous  tendency."  Now,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  our  polity,  which  leaves  all  domestic  questions  to  the  State,  be  wise,  as 
I  think  it  is — eminently  wise — not  because  it  was  made  in  1787,  but  be 
cause  it  is  suited  to  1865,  and  our  condition  now  as  well  as  then,  why 
weaken  the  argument  for  its  continuance  by  discussing  its  irrevocable  na 
ture  ?  Why  not  build  its  defence  on  its  intrinsic  excellency  ?  Why  not 
then,  from  this  fortification,  thunder  your  rifled  artillery?  Why,  if  it  be 
so  wise,  exhaust  your  fulminations  in  trying  to  prove  that  we  have  no 
power  to  change  it  in  the  mode  prescribed  ?  It  is  in  the  light'  of  these 
democratic  truths  that  I  read  the  fifth  article  of  the  Constitution.  I  con 
struct  my  argument  upon  the  perennial  beauty,  exquisite  symmetry,  and 
enduring  perfection  bf  that  system  which  reserves  to  the  local  communities 
their  local  interests,  the  very  genius  of  all  permanency,  the  very  element 
which  secures  us  against  that  homogeneity  so  dreaded  by  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  [Mr.  BROOKS]  ;  the  happy  accord  of  diverse  interests,  E 
pluribus  unum,  many  as  the  waves  in  variety,  but  one  as  the  sea  in  unity ; 
stars  upon  one  constellated  ensign,  each  differing  in  glory,  but  upon  the 
field  of  blue  all  emblematic  of  the  harmony  of  the  Federal  system, 
springing  out  of  the  "  brotherly  dissimilitudes "  of  the  mingled  States ! 
It  is  upon  this  foundation  that  I  would  seek,  by  reason  and  not  by  author 
ity,  to  erect  the  argument  for  its  preservation  against  radical  change. 

Does  it  follow,  as  my  friend  from  Iowa  suggested,  that  I  weaken  my 
argument  against  the  amendment  because  I  argue  its  demerits  while  ac 
knowledging  the  power  to  amend?  I  may  object  to  an  alteration  in  my 
hou.se,  especially  if  it  disturbs  the  foundation  and  general  plan  ;  but  must 
I  change  it  fundamentally  because  I  am  the  proprietor  and  have  the 
power?  If  it  be  true  that  a  denial  of  the  power  is  apt  to  be  regarded  as 
an  apology  for  a  mischief,  do  I  not  strengthen  the  argumenfby  discussing 
the  mischief?  The  mischief  to  be  apprehended  in  this  instance  is  not  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  It  is  the  abolition  by  this  amendment  of  our  pecu 
liar  form  and  structure  of  Government.  The  argument  which  I  desired 
to  hear  and  meet  should  be  directed  to  this  point.  Who  cares,  sir, 
whether  slavery  die  or  live,  when  the  question  is,  "  Shall  the  form  and 


CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING    SLAVEEY.  405 

substance  of  our  Government  perish  ?  "  Show  me  that  the  Government 
will  perish  or  be  imperilled  if  this  amendment  is  not  carried,  and  I  will 
vote  it  though  all  the  devils  in  the  South  and  North  should  confront  me 
with  their  wrath  !  Show  me  that  by  voting  against  it,  I  facilitate  the 
recstablishment  of  the  Government  in  all  its  integrity,  and  my  vote  shall 
be  against  it. 

Mr.  KASSON.  I  rise  in  order  to  ask  the  gentleman  if  at  this  point,  as 
well  as  anywhere  in  his  argument,  he  will  permit  me  to  call  his  attention  to  a 
suggestion  he  made  before,  and  which  seems  to  have  been  touched  upon 
by  his  last  point  more  clearly  than  elsewhere ;  and  that  is  the  charge  that 
the  tendency  of  this  amendment  is  the  destruction  of  the  form  and  sub 
stance  of  our  Government.  The  form  of  Government  we  all  under 
stand  ;  and  even  he  will  not  contend  that  this  amendment  changes  the 
form.  Touching  its  change  of  substance,  I  presume  he  alludes  to  the 
charge  he  made  the  other  day  of  its  effect  being  a  centralization  of  power. 
Am  I  right  ?  Then  I  wish  to  ask  him  upon  this  point — that  we  may  not 
be  misled  by  a  misapplication  of  terms — to  explain  what  he  means  by 
such  centralization.  I  will  say  what  I  understand  by  it.  When  I  read, 
the  other  day,  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  the  original  Convention  which 
formed  the  Constitution,  and  unanimously  adopted  by  them,  this  phrase 
occurred  in  it,  "  Consolidation  of  the  Union,"  as  the  great  object  of  the 
framers  of  that  system  of  government.  Objection  was  taken  to  it  by  the 
gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  VOORHEES],  but  I  take  it  in  its  length  and 
breadth ;  and  I  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  to  the  dis 
tinction  between  "  consolidation  "  of  the  Union  and  the  "  centralization  " 
of  the  Government.  Centralization  means  when  you  take  the  power  from 
the  State  and  give  it  to  the  United  States.  But  when  you  take  it  both 
from  the  States  and  from  the  United  States  there  is  not  a  particle  of  cen 
tralization  of  power.  That  is  what  this  amendment  does. 

Mr.  Cox.  Before  I  get  through  I  will  meet  the  statement  of  the 
gentleman.  I  would  prefer  to  leave  to  the  States  individually  and  of  their 
own  separate  motion,  the  question  of  abolishing  slavery,  and  the  inaugura 
tion  of  measures  to  that  end.  I  believe  this  amendment,  if  carried  out, 
will  have  a  tendency  toward  consolidating  power  in  the  Federal  head. 
Whatever  it  may  be  termed,  I  am  opposed  to  compounding  powers  in  the 
Federal  Government.  Whether  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Government 
be  united  in  one  department,  or  consolidated  in  the  Union,  I  would  decen 
tralize  such  powers,  take  them  from  the  Federal  centre,  and  distribute 
them  among  the  States  and  the  people.  If  you  consolidate  or  centralize 
powers  here,  you  endanger  by  the  excess  of  power  the  substance  and  form 
itself  of  our  Government.  The  form  will  soon  change  to  conform  to  the 
substance.  But  I  will  make  that  clear  as  I  progress. 

II.  Another  reason  for  discussing  the  question  of  power  is,  that  it  is 
the  most  valuable  gift  from  the  States  to  the  Federal  Government,  it'  it  be 
not  an  express  reservation  of  the  power  in  the  States.  Perhaps,  as  both 
Federal  and  State  Governments  take  part  in  the  amendment  of  the  Con 
stitution,  the  power  to  amend  is  both  a  reserved  and  a  delegated  power*. 
Whatever  it  is,  it  is  so  valuable  that  I  cannot  surrender  it.  Not  now. 
If  ever  peace  comes,  it  will  be  through  its  exercise,  upon  this  very  ques 
tion  of  slavery.  I  regard  that  Government  with  a  constitution  which  has 


4:06  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

not  the  liberty  of  amendment,  as  lacking  the  means  of  its  own  conserva 
tion.  Such  an  amendment  is  a  safety-valve,  or  governor,  upon  the  en 
gine  of  State.  A  State  without  it,  is  in  perpetual  danger  of  violent  rev 
olution.  Such  an  amendment  is  a  peaceful,  legal,  and  salutary  revolution. 
It  is  the  beauty  of  our  system  of  written  constitutions  that,  like  machines 
with  a  principle  of  compensation  belonging  to  them,  any  irregularity  may 
be  corrected  without  breaking  the  machine  or  impairing  the  movement. 
Such  powers  of  change  save  the  State  from  such  terrible  red-handed  rev 
olution  as  that  now  upon  us.  Rufus  Choate  once  described,  as  if  he  fore 
saw  it,  the  present  revolution  "  as  a  great  sea  lifting  itself,  with  darkened 
sky,  and  net  very  imitable  thunder ;  a  tempest  which  overturns  and  suc 
cessfully  resists  the  existing  public  authority,  arrests  the  exercise  of 
supreme  power,  introduces  by  force,  or  by  resort  to  a  primary  right  of 
nature,  a  new,  paramount  authority  into  the  rule  of  the  State."  Had  this 
bloodless  and  legal  revolution  by  amendment  of  our  Constitution  been 
wisely  exercised  upon  this  very  subject  of  slavery,  as  Crittenden,  Douglas, 
ay,  even  Toombs  and  Davis,  insisted  in  1860,  we  would  not  be  fulfilling 
so  sadly  the  magnificent  picture  which  Choate  painted  of  tempestuous  and 
fratricidal  strife  ! 

Sir,  when  the  statesmen  of  1860  sought  to  exercise  this  power  upon 
this  subject  of  slavery,  I  gave  my  voice  and  vote  for  it.  I  know  nothing 
now,  but  the  fear  of  being  misjudged  by  partial  friends  about  me,  that 
should  deter  me  from  again  asserting  the  power  which,  with  my  colleague 
[Mr.  PENDLETON],  I  then  assumed.  He  bravely  resists  the  popular  cur 
rent  to  defy  its  exercise  now  ;  I  humbly  do  the  same.  But  this  I  will  not 
do,  discard  my  own  words  and  throw  aside  a  once  cherished  principle  of 
government  because  its  present  exercise  may  be  an  outrage  upon  the  sense 
and  patriotism  of  the  country. 

When  I  first  came  to  this  Congress  with  my  colleague,  we  came  under 
the  odium  of  "  pro-slavery  ;  "  we  came  defending  the  position  of  Douglas, 
that  Congress  had  no  right  to  interfere  with  slavery,  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  in  States  and  Territories.  We  claimed  non-intervention  as  both 
wise  and  constitutional.  Again  and  again,  when  anti-slavery  and  pro- 
slavery  zealots  demanded  congressional  action,  we  said,  "  No,  no  ;  there 
is  no  power  under  the  Constitution  to  abolish  it  or  protect  it.  It  is  local, 
not  Federal ;  State,  not  national.  If  you  would  touch  it,  either  to  extend 
or  limit,  abrogate  or  institute  it,  first  change  the  Constitution"  Again, 
when  discussing  questions  connected  with  the  power  of  a  State  over  the 
subject  of  black  immigration,  I  have  denied  all  power  to  Congress,  to  the 
President,  to  the  army,  to  interfere  witli  this  subject,  because  it  was  not 
BO  written  in  the  Constitution.  I  said,  "  Amend  that  instrument  first,  if 
you  would  thus  break  down  the  incontestable  rights  of  the  State  under  the 
Constitution  in  such  matters."  Denying  ever  the  propriety  of  its  exercise, 
I  have  never  heard  the  power  denied.  Am  I  to  ignore  the  power  because 
foolish  fanatics  may  rule  in  its  exercise?  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  his  message 
of  December  4,  1860,  proposed  to  save  us  from  war  by  slavery  amend 
ments,  which  he  called  peaceful  and  constitutional  remedies.  Who  ob 
jected  to  the  exercise  of  such  remedies  for  want  of  power?  No  one  ex 
cept  gentlemen  opposite,  who  declared  it  to  be  monstrous  and  illegal, 
against  the  laws  of  God  and  man,  fundamental  and  irreversible. 


CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING   SLAVERY.  407 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Pennsylvania.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio  a  single  question  at  this  point.  He  refers  to  the  message  of  Presi 
dent  Buchanan.  I  desire  to  ask  him  whether  the  recommendation  of  Mr. 
Buchanan  did  not  apply  to  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and 
not  at  all  to  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  States? 

Mr.  Cox.  The  recommendation  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  which  I  hold  in 
my  hand,  applies  to  both.  But  even  if  it  is  only  applied  to  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  the  question  of  slavery  was  the  subject-matter  of  the  amend 
ment. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Pennsylvania.  If  I  recollect  aright,  at  the  time,  the 
question  of  the  disturbance  of  slavery  in  the  States  was  not  agitated  at  all. 
It  was  denied  by  the  Republican  party  that  they  intended  in  any  way 
whatever  to  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  States  ;  and  it 
wras  only  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  and  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  States  which  was  agitated  in  Congress  at  that  time.  It  is  since  the 
inauguration  of  this  Administration  that  the  question  of  the  abolition  of 
slavery  within  the  States  has  grown  up  in  the  country. 

Mr.  Cox.  That  will  do  for  the  gentleman  ;  because  I  have  the  recom 
mendation  of  Mr.  Buchanan  upon  that  subject  here.  It  is  more  authentic 
than  even  his  good  memory.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"  An  express  recognition  of  the  rights  of  property  in  slaves  in  the  States  where  it  now 
exists  or  may  hereafter  exist." 

As  my  valued  friend  will  perceive,  this  was  not  a  question  of  the 
abolishment  of  slavery.  It  was,  however,  a  question  which  touched, 
through  a  constitutional  amendment,  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the 
States.  The  gentleman  says  the  recommendation  was  confined  to  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  and  did  not  reach  that  in  the  States.  He  will  perceive 
his  mistake.  I  am  not  anxious  to  raise  a  discussion  with  my  friends  upon 
this  side  of  the  chamber,  but  I  am  entitled  to  be  consistent  with  the  rec 
ord  I  have  made  for  eight  years  here.  I  have  always  claimed  the  right 
to  pass  upon  the  slavery  question  by  an  amendment  in  pursuance  of  the 
fifth  article  of  the  Constitution.  I  have  sought  only  to  make  its  exercise 
judicious.  The  abolitionists  only  declared,  in  1860,  against  u  any  express 
recognition  of  the  right  of  property  in  man  in  the  States  where  it  now  ex 
ists,  or  may  hereafter  exist."  Then  the  abolitionists  made  the  argument 
of  my  colleagues  [Messrs.  ASHLEY  and  PENDLETON].  They  denied  the 
power.  It  was  and  is  so  easy  to  argue  against  the  power  to  do  a  thing 
which  we  do  not  like.  When  Mr.  Buchanan,  referring  to  the  amend 
ment  clause,  proposed  to  extend  its  operation  to  protect  this  right  in  the 
Territories  until  admitted  as  States,  and  a  like  recognition  of  the  ri^ht  of 
the  master  to  his  escaped  slave,  who  objected  ?  Who  ?  Not  my  colleague 
[Mr.  PENDLETONJ  and  myself.  For  though  we  might  have  agreed  with 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Dred  Scott's  case,  we  desired  such 
principles  established  in  the  fundamental  law.  Why?  Because  it  was 
recommended,  to  use  the  language  of  that  day,  "  as  an  explanatory  amend 
ment  which  would  forever  terminate  the  existing  dissensions  and  restore 
peace  and  harmony  among  the  States."  Those  who  desired  not  to  ter 
minate  our  troubles,  or  to  keep  peace  and  avert  war,  denied  the  power  to 
enslave  or  to  recognize  slavery.  This  side  of  the  House  labored,  O  how 


4:08  EIGHT   YEARS    IN    CONGRESS. 

nobly,  but  how  vainly,  to  have  the  compromises  of  that  dark  hour  written 
.with  a  pencil  of  light  on  the  organic  law,  by  the  unimpeached  power  of 
amendment,  that  North  and  South  might  dwell  in  accord  forever. 

Again,  on  the  28th  of  February,  1861,  in  the  hope  of  allaying  the 
fears  of  Southern  men,  a  joint  resolution  was  passed  with  my  colleague's 
[Mr.  PENDLETON'S]  sanction  and  vote — yeas  133  to  65  nays — providing 
for  an  amendment  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  the  present  joint  resolution, 
as  follows : 

"ART.  12.  No  amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  Constitution  which  shall  authorize  or 
give  to  Congress  the  power  to  abolish  or  interfere  within  any  State  with  the  domestic 
institutions  thereof,  including  that  of  persons  held  to  labor  or  service  by  the  laws  of  said 
State." 

This  was  voted  for  by  South  and  North — Douglas.  Crittenden,  Pugh, 
Bococke,  and  Hunter.  What  did  it  mean?  I  do  not -ask  what  was  its  in 
tention  as  a  remedial  measure  :  as  a  bill  to  quiet  title ;  as  a  peace  meas 
ure.  It  did  two  things :  first,  it  assumed  to  speak  by  amendment  on  a 
domestic  question ;  secondly,  in  the  very  substance  and  body  of  it,  it  re 
cognized,  without  dissent  from  a  single  voice,  the  power  to  amend  by 
abolishing  slavery  in  States,  and  it  sought  to  checkmate  that  power  by 
adding  it  to  the  exceptions  of  the  fifth  article.  It  was  as  if  it  said,  "  Con 
gress,  by  the  mode,  prescribed,  may  propose  amendments  which  shall  be 
valid  as  a  part  of  this  Constitution,  provided  no  amendment  shall  be 
made  as  to  the  abolition  of  and  interference  with  slavery."  Truly  my  col 
league  was  right  in  requiring,  as  a  peace  measure,  such  an  expression  as 
an  exception  to  the  general  power  of  amendment.  He  knew  the  old  maxim 
of  construction,  "  The  expression  of  one  thing  is  the  exclusion  of  another." 
As  the  Constitution  had  excluded  two  subjects  from  amendment,  and  had 
failed  to  exclude  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  sacredly  unamendable,  it  fol 
lows  that  the  power  to  abolish  was  given  in  the  general  grant.  But  the 
argument  drawn  from  my  colleague's  former  vote  or  opinion  is  not  con 
clusive,  except  upon  him,  and  only  upon  him  on  the  frailest  of  all  argu 
ments,  that,  once  in  favor  of  a  thing,  he  should  always  be  in  favor  of  it. 
I  shall  be  the  last  to  press  the  ad  hominem  upon  him.  I  need  not  recall 
to  the  House  the  propositions  of  Mr.  Crittenden  or  their  tenor.  In  the 
preamble  their  object  is  stated.  They  were  intended  to  allay  u  dissensions 
concerning  the  rights  and  security  of  the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  States." 
They  proposed  tb  do  this  by  constitutional  provisions.  Above  the  latitude 
of  36°  30'  slavery  was  prohibited  ;  South  it  was  recognized  and  protected. 
They  denied  to  Congress  the  right  to  abolish  in  the  District  and  in  the 
States  where  the  United  States  had  jurisdiction.  They  proposed  to  pro 
tect  members  of  Congress  and  other  Federal  officers  in  bringing  their 
slaves  here,  to  protect  the  inter-State  slave  trade,  and  to  pay  for  fugitive 
slaves  in  certain  cases.  As  if  this  were  not  enough  to  show  the  power 
over  this  subject  by  amendment,  and  because  these  statesmen  of  1860 
knew  the  power  existed  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  States,  they  provided : 

"  No  future  amendment  of  the  Constitution  shall  affect  the  five  preceding  articles ; 
nor  the  third  paragraph  of  the  second  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution ;  nor 
the  third  paragraph  of  the  second  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  said  Constitution ;  and 
no  amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  Constitution  which  shall  authorize  or  give  to  Congress 
any  power  to  abolish  or  interfere  with  slavery  in  any  of  the  States  by  whose  laws  it  is,  or 
may  be,  allowed  or  permitted." 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING   SLAVES Y.  409 

Thus  they  strove  to  mnke  the  lines  of  slavery  irrevocable  by  amend 
ment  ;  to  forever  preserve  the  three-fifths  representation  of  slaves  and  the 
provision  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves.  Who  questioned  the  power 
then  ?  Not  my  colleague.  Not  a  man  on  this  side  in  Congress  then  or 
now.  Oh  !  it  was  then  to  be  used  for  a  patriotic  purpose  ;  for  salvation, 
and  not  for  destruction.  But  is  it  less  a  power?  Am  I  to  give  up  the 
sweet  shine  of  the  sun  because  it  may  breed  malaria  ?  Am  I  to  surrender 
the  benignant  element  of  fire  because  it  may  consume  as  well  as  comfort? 
Am  I  to  be  driven  by  the  accidents  of  war,  or  the  vicissitudes  of  time,  to 
change  my  opinion  of  the  Constitution  and  its  powers  ?  Abusus  non  tollit 
usum.  I  will  cling  to  the  power,  and  make  my  argument,  when  and  as  I 
choose  to  make  it,  against  its  abuse. 

Again,  the  Peace  Convention  sent  its  proposition  to  Congress,  inhibiting 
any  amendment  of  the  Constitution  on  most  of  the  subjects  connected 
with  slavery  above  recited.  They  were  offered  in  the  House  on  the  1st 
of  March,  1861.  I  remember  well  that  I  was  detained  from  the  House 
by  illness.  I  was  not  here  to  vote  for  them  with  nay  colleague  [Mr.  PEN- 
DLETOX],  but  his  name  is  enough.  I  find  it  there,  asserting  these  powers 
under  the  amendment  clause — which  he  now  denies — while  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  together  with  my  colleague  [Mr.  ASHLEY],  along  with  the  seces 
sionists,  treated  them  as  unworthy  of  your  sanction.  Why  ?  Because  you 
were  not  actuated  by  the  genuine  patriotism  of  my  colleague  before  me, 
whose  love  of  the  whole  country  led  him  to  defy  the  taunts  of  secession 
ists  and  the  jeers  of  abolitionists,  and  to  march  boldly  up  to  the  exercise  of 
the  power  now  asserted  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  ASHLEY]  in  one  case  and 
denied  by  my  other  colleague  [Mr.  PENDLETON]  in  the  other. 

Gentlemen  have  heard  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen.  It  consisted  of 
men  of  every  shade  of  political  opinion :  Messrs.  Powell,  Seward,  Colla- 
mer,  Bigler,  Hunter,  Toombs,  Davis,  Rice,  Crittenden,  Douglas,  Wade, 
Doolittle,  and  Grimes.  They  agreed  upon  no  plan.  But  many  plans 
were  proposed,  and  all  under  the  amendment  clause.  Do  gentlemen 
tell  me  that  these  propositions  were  unconstitutional  ?  Were  they  usur 
pations  of  power  never  conceded?  Strange  that  Mr.  Hunter,  the  biogra 
pher  of  Calhoun,  and  Mr.  Davis,  his  follower  and  disciple,  did  not  discover 
it !  Strange  that  Mr.  Hunter  should  have  proposed  that  Congress  should 
pass  no  law  in  relation  to  slavery,  except  by  the  consent  of  a  majority  of 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding 
States,  thus  yielding  the  power  with  qualifications !  Can  this  be  yielded 
and  yet  the  power  over  slavery  in  the  States  be  above  all  amendment? 
Or  must  my  colleague  take  refuge,  as  he  did,  in  a  higher  law  ?  Strange 
that  Douglas  should  have  proposed  to  punish  conspiracies  against  slave 
holders  and  their  property  !  Strange  that  Davis  should  have  proposed,  by 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  to  recognize  slaves  as  property  in  transit 
or  sojourn  !  But  why  weary  the  House  with  these  recitals  ?  They  prove 
this,  that  the  strictest' sect  of  Southern  statesmen  acknowledged  the  power 
by  amendment  over  this  subject,  and  sought  to  exercise  it,  and  sought 
further  by  amendment  to  prevent  its  exercise  when  it  might  impair  or 
destroy  their  institution  !  Is  my  colleague  a  better  State-rights  man  than 
Jefferson  Davis  ?  Or,  to  drop  to  the  other  extreme,  does  ke,  mine  pro 
tune,  join  my  other  colleague  [Mr.  ASHLEY],  who  then  denied,  and  yet 


410  EIGHT   TEAKS    IN    CONGRESS. 

denies  the  power  by  amendment  to  establish  slavery  as  unrepublican  ?  It 
was  with  some  amusement  that  I  listened  to  my  two  colleagues  [Messrs. 
PENDLETOX  and  ASHLEY]  yesterday.  How  adroitly  the  Democratic  mem 
ber  thought  to  catch  the  Republican.  How  he  plied  him  to  admit  the 
power  to  establish  slavery !  How  shrewdly  my  colleague  on  the  other 
side  evaded !  On  the  other  hand,  members  on  the  other  side  sought  to 
entangle  my  colleague  [Mr.  PENDLETON]  with  some  of  his  former  votes ! 
How  both  evaded  the  issues  presented  in  their  former  positions  !  while  the 
humble  member  who  now  addresses  you,  sir,  sat  complacently  consistent 
amid  the  melodramatic  performance,  ready  to  admit  the  power  of  amend 
ment  unlimited,  to  change  the  fundamental  law,  under  the  guards  and 
modes  prescribed,  even  to  the  establishment  of  slavery  or  a  monarchy — of 
entire  freedom  or  entire  democracy.  Both  of  my  friends  deny  this  as  ex 
treme  and  heterodox  :  the  one,  because  he  would  have  nothing  but  limited 
republicanism  as  the  form  of  our  Government ; — that  is  my  Democratic 
colleague  who  is  so  republican  ;  the  other,  because  he  would  have  nothing 
but  sweeping  democracy  as  the  basis  of  our  Constitution ; — that  is  my 
Republican  colleague  who  is  so  democratic.  The  wishes  of  each  color 
their  present  arguments  as  to  the  power.  When  slavery  is  to  be  guaran 
teed,  my  colleague  from  Cincinnati  believes  with  me  in  the  power  to 
amend,  and  my  colleague  from  Toledo  denies  it.  When  it  is  to  be  abol 
ished,  my  colleague  from  Toledo  believes  with  me  in  the  power  to  amend,  and 
the  other  denies  it.  Both  deny  the  power  when  slavery  is  to  be  affected,  and 
both  admit  it  when  slavery  is  to  be  affected.  I  have  them  both  on  either 
side  and  each  on  both  sides  and  both  with  me.  I  accept  the  power  in  either 
case  as  they  claim  it,  but  go  beyond  them  both  ;  for  I  stand  on  a  principle. 
They  are  enamored  of  the  power  only  when  one  case  is  absent.  Like  the 
fond  lover  of  two  maidens,  they  love  the  one  "when  the  other  dear  charm 
er's  away."  [Laughter.]  Yet  they  are  unfaithful  to  both,  because  they 
are  so  attached  to  either — unfaithful  because  they  are  not  upon  the  prin 
ciple.  I  can  extend  to  them  (as  a  member  from  New  York  used  to  say 
here  in  olden  times),  from  the  serene  Olympian  heights  of  my  cerulean 
consistency,  the  eternal  principle  of  republicanism  and  democracy  which 
will  reconcile  them  both  to  duty  and  the  Constitution.  [Laughter.]  Both 
my  colleagues  hold,  that  to  concede  the  power  and  exercise  it  in  certain 
cases  is  to  subvert  the  Constitution.  If  slavery  is  to  be  protected,  the 
member  from  Toledo  believes  the  Government  destroyed.  His  only  ap 
peal  is  to  the  s\Vord  of  revolution.  Never  would  he  consent  that  the 
power  to  amend  should  include  the  power  to  establish  slavery  in  Ohio ; 
never.  He  would  sound  the  tocsin  of  inevitable  resistance.  If  slavery 
is  to  be  abolished  by  the  same  power,  the  other  member  blows  the  trum 
pet  and  beats  the  drum  to  revolutionary  defiance.  Both  march  to  the 
same  discordant  music,  when  if  they  would  take  Calhoun,  Story,  or  their 
own  practice  and  principles,  only  changing  the  time  of  their  application, 
they  would  find  in  the  granted  power  to  amend,  an  unlimited  authority  as 
to  the  matter  and  only  limited  as  to  the  mode.  I  follow  no  such  counsels. 
"  You  can  change,  but  cannot  subvert,  by  amendment,"  says  my  iriend 
before  me.  Ah  !  pray  who  is  to  judge  of  what  is  subversion  and  what  is 
change?  M  I  leave  the  question  to  my  colleagues,  one  will  regard  the 
guarantee  and  the  other  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  subversion  and  not 


CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING   SLAVERY.  411 

merely  change.  My  colleague  [Mr.  PENDLETON]  derives,  unconsciously, 
his  language  from  the  South  Carolina  declaration  of  independence  of  De 
cember  24,  1860.  It  says  : 

"  Observing  the  forms  of  the  Constitution,  a  sectional  party  has  found  within  that 
article,  establishing  the  executive  department,  the  means  of  subverting  the  Constitution 
itself.  The  sectional  combination  for  the  subversion  of  the  Constitution  has  been  aided 
by  the  elevation  of  the  blacks." 

The  other  member  [Mr.  ASHLEY]  regards  the  denial  by  South  Caro 
lina  of  President  Lincoln  as  the  legal  President  as  the  very  essence  of 
subversion,  and  the  denial  of  franchise  to  the  blacks  as  subversive  of 
republicanism.  He  therefore  strikes  out  the  word  white  in  his  reconstruc 
tion  bills.  Where  gentlemen  so  eminent  disagree  as  to  what  is  subversion 
and  what  is  change  or  amendment,  where  is  the  tribunal  to  decide?  I 
answer,  in  Congress  by  two-thirds  of  both  Houses,  and  in  the  States  by 
three-fourths  of  the  Legislatures,  and  in  the  intelligent  sovereignty  of  the 
people  of  each  State  who  have,  in  limine,  consented  to  this  mode  of 
'amendment. 

Believing  in  the  power  of  amendment,  I  am  willing  to  judge  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  propositions  before  I  vote  to  submit  them.  This  discretion 
is  a  part  of  the  discretion  of  the  Congress.  It  is  one  of  the  checks  which 
the  minority  have  against  the  passion  and  malice  of  the  majority.  Nay, 
more,  the  checks  against  the  exercise  of  this  power  unwisely  are  threefold  : 
first,  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  must  agree  to  propose  amendments ;  or 
second,  two-thirds  of  the  Legislatures  must  propose  a  Convention  ;  and 
third,  after  all  that,  the  Legislatures  or  Conventions  of  three-fourths  of 
the  States  must  ratify.  Judge  Story  elaborates  this  argument,  and  makes 
it  unanswerable  as  against  the  dangerous  abuse  of  the  power.  Thus  re 
stricted,  the  power  of  amendment  is  unlimited.  No  danger  of  monarchy  ; 
no  danger  of  the  King  of  Dahomey,  which  startled  gentlemen  when  I  used 
his  majesty  to  illustrate  my  extreme  position  ;  no  danger  of  striking  down 
the  republican  form  of  governmsnt  without  a  contest  in  which  two  out 
of  three  members  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  shall  inaugurate  the  measure, 
and  the  States,  three  out  of  four,  are  to  be  consulted  for  ratification.  Am 
I  answered  that  it  is  undemocratic  to  allow  this  power  ?  I  answer,  it  is 
only  -undemocratic  to  disallow  it.  All  the  States  concede  it,  and  the 
State-rights  man  is  content.  All  the  people  in  the  several  States  pass 
upon  it,  and  the  Democrat  is  content.  Democracy  places  its  trust  in  the 
intelligence  of  the  people  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  States ;  and  thus 
trusting,  even  in  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  national  humiliation  it  fears 
no  evil. 

While,  then,  I  concede  the  power,  do  I  fear  that  the  amendment  may 
pass  and  become  a  law  in  spite  of  all  the  guards  thrown  around  it  ?  I  do 
not  fear  any  open  march  toward  monarchy  or  despotism.  I  fear  in  time 
of  war  and  the  passionate  strife  it  begets  that  this  amendment  may  radi 
cally  change  the  Government ;  that  it  may  by  force,  fraud,  by  indirection, 
and  by  an  unfair  count  of  States,  be  made  to  change  our  polity.  Be 
cause  such  amendments,  interfering  in  home  affairs  by  the  Federal  power, 
tend  toward  consolidation,  I  am  against  them.  My  colleague  [Mr.  PEN 
DLETON]  himself  will  admit  that  an  amendment  may  be  made  even  to  the 
very  system  of  government,  legitimate  in  its  operation,  which  may  do 


412  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

this.  You  can  amend  the  Constitution  as  to  the  distribution  of  its  powers 
so  as  to  place  the  Judiciary  and  the  Legislature  in  the  hands  of  the  Exec 
utive.  Thus  you  compound  power.  When  these  departments  are  made 
one — whether  that  one  be  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial — as  they  may 
be  by  amendment,  it  is  Jefferson's  definition  of  tyranny.  Who  will  doubt 
the  power  of  amendment  to  do  this  ?  And  yet  who  so  base  as  to  propose 
it  here,  or,  if  proposed,  to  ratify  it?  It  is  by  these  delusive  moral  radical 
reforms,  reaching  into  home  affairs  by  the  Federal  power,  that  I  fear 
most  the  destruction  of  our  Government.  Hence  I  am  jealous  of  the  ex 
ercise  of  the  power  to  amend,  and  especially  in  this  instance.  But  if  the 
people  of  the  States  even  choose  to  abuse  their  power  to  amend  and  de 
stroy  their  Government,  who  can  say  them  nay?  If  they  are  foolish 
enough  to  call  in  a  king,  or  connect  religion  with  State,  or  declare  polyg 
amy  the  corner-stone  of  public  liberty,  who  shall  deny  them,  provided 
they  follow  the  mode  they  themselves  have  ordained  to  make  the  organic 
law?  A  gentleman  [Mr.  KASSON]  thought  that  I  conceded  away  the 
argument  against  this  amendment  when  I  admitted  the  power.  He 
argued  that,  the  power  admitted,  there  was  nothing  left  but  to  send  it  to 
the  States.  If  the  power  exists,  am  I  not,  as  one  of  the  two-thirds  of 
Congress,  to  consider  the  wisdom  pf  its  submission  ?  Thus  only  I  comply 
with  the  Constitution.  Why  require  Congress  to  pass  on  it  if  I  am  to 
yield  my  judgment  in  proposing,  to  the  judgment  of  the  ratifying  power? 
Do  we  come  here  to  play  the  puppet?  I  will  pursue  strictly  the  power 
given,  and  if  I  think  best,  let  the  elector  in  the  State  or  the  member  of 
the  Legislature  judge.  Congress  chooses  ;  we  are  sent  here  for  that  pur 
pose  by  the  people ;  and  they  would  account  us  faithless  not  to  judge  of 
the  proposition  in  the  first  instance  before  we  sent  it  to  the  States  for  ap 
proval. 

When  efforts  were  being  made  in  the  winter  of  1861  to  avert*  secession 
and  war,  I  had  a  definite  idea  of  the  inexpediency  of  abolishing  slavery  in 
the  States.  So  had  the  Republican  members.  The  whole  House,  on  the 
llth  of  February,  1861,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  SHERMAN,  "resolved  that 
neither  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  nor  the  people  or  governments 
of  the  non-slaveholding  States  have  the  constitutional  right  to  legislate 
upon  or  interfere  with  slavery  in  any  of  the  slaveholding  States."  This 
was  a  reaffirmation  of  the  Republican  platform  of  1860.  All  agreed  that 
it  would  be  wise  to  let  it  alone,  as  the  Constitution  gave  no  right  over  it. 
But  the  power  to  amend  the  Constitution  was  not  questioned  then.  The 
graceless  inexpediency  and  suicidal  unwisdom  of  Congressional  action  only 
was  affirmed  by  the  resolution.  The  unconstitutionality  of  such  action 
was  declared.  Upon  that  we  upon  this  side  have  stood  in  denying  all 
power  over  the  subject  by  emancipation  and  confiscation,  either  by  the 
military  or  civil  power,  by  the  executive  or  the  legislative.  We  trace  to 
the  breach  of  this  resolution,  reaffirmed  in  the  Crittenden  resolve  in  July, 
1861,  the  prolongation  of  the  war  by  the  division  of  the  North  and  the 
union  of  the  South.  The  amendment  now  proposed  is  the  culmination  of 
this  suicidal  policy.  If  the  steps  to  it  are  unsound,  what  can  be  said  of 
the  consummation? 

While,  therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  differed  with  great  diffidence 
from  my  colleague  [Mr.  PENDLETON]  as  to  the  power  of  amendment,  and 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT   ABOLISHING  *  SLAVERY  413 

have  pursued  thus  far  a  different  path  from  his,  I  shall  reach  the  same 
end ;  or  rather,  my  humble  way  leads  into  the  highway  in  which  we 
shall  travel  together  on  the  inexpediency  and  anarchical  character  of  this 
amendment.  I  join  with  him,  natives  as  we  are  both  of  the  free  State  of 
Ohio,  in  repelling  with  honest  scorn  the  imputation  that  because  we  dis 
favor  this  amendment  we  favor  slavery  or  rebellion.  We  are  not  unused 
to  such  irrelevant  and  contemptible  insinuations.  Together,  in  1856,  we 
came  to  these  halls.  We  are  all  that  is  left  of  the  Democratic  members 
of  the  thirty-fifth  Congress. 

Mr.  PENDLETON.     And  we  are  not  left. 

Mr.  Cox.  True  ;  like  stormy  petrels,  tossing  upon  the  angry  waves 
of  sectional  agitation,  we  are  at  last  overwhelmed  in  the  flood  of  fanati 
cism.  We  are  the  last  roses  of  the  Democratic  summer.  [Laughter.] 
But,  Mr.  Speaker,  although  we  may  not  be  upon  the  same  branch,  we  are 
still  together  upon  the  same  rose  tree.  [Laughter.]  It  would  illy  be 
come  us,  in  the  close  of  our  career  here,  to  differ  upon  any  thing  except 
upon  the  most  vital  urgency.  In  one  thing  we  have  never  differed,  and 
do  not  now ;  we  have  neither  discussed  slavery  nor  encouraged  rebellion. 
Certainly  we  have  never  favored  slavery  or  its  agitation. 

Speaking  for  myself,  slavery  is  to  me  the  most  repugnant  of  all  human 
institutions.  No  man  alive  should  hold  me  in  slavery ;  and  if  it  is  my 
business  no  man,  with  my  consent,  shall  hold  another.  Thus  I  voted  in 
1851,  in  Ohio,  with  my  party,  which  made  the  new  constitution  of  my 
own  State.  I  have  never  defended  slavery ;  nor  has  my  party.  .  Mem 
bers  have  defended  it,  as  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  FERNANDO 
WOOD]  ;  others  have  attacked  it,  as  the  other  member  [Mr.  ODELL]  on 
my  left ;  but  neither  of  these  has  conformed  to  Democratic  practice  and 
precedent.  When  I  say  this,  I  but  speak  the  tenets  of  the  Democracy  as 
sembled  in  convention  for  the  States  and  for  the  Union.  Is  it  answered 
that  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  BROOKS]  has  this  session  de 
fended  the  institution?  That  gentleman  did  not  pretend  to  speak  for  the 
Democratic  party.  Indeed  he  does  not  profess  to  speak  for  it,  but  rather 
as  an  old-Hue  Whig,  having  now  his  views  independent  of  all  machines  of 
party.  The  last  session  he  held  that  slavery  was  dead.  Gentlemen 
should  not  object  to  his  eulogizing  the  deceased,  but  by  so  doing  he  does 
not  intend,  nor  does  he,  if  he  intends,  commit  any  Democrat  to  his  moral 
convictions. 

What  I  desire  is,  not  that  gentlemen  should  debate  the  question  of 
slavery  or  anti-slavery,  but  of  the  power  we  have  over  it,  and  of  the  pro 
priety  of  its  exercise  either  now  or  at  any  time.  The  gen^eman  from 
Vermont  [Mr.  MORRILL]  asks,  "  Do  you  gentlemen  from  the  free  North 
intend  to  battle  for  slavery  after  the  South  is  ready  to  abandon  it?"  We 
answer,  "  Principiis  olsta"  Mr.  Davis  and  his  coadjutors  may  do  as 
they  please  ;  we  do  not  battle  for  slavery  nor  against  it.  We  cling  to  the 
system  of  our  Government  "  as  the  bond  of  unity  in  the  past,  as  the  only 
bond  of  union  in  the  future,  the  only  land  lifted  above  the  waters  on  which 
the  ark  of  Union  can  be  moored.  From  that  ark  alone  will  go  out  the 
dove  blessed  of  the  Spirit,  which  shall  return,  bringing  in  its  mouth  the 
olive-branch  of  peace."  Not  for  Jefferson  Davis,  not  for  Virginia,  but 
for  our  own  States,  our  own  Government,  do  we  stand  on  the  principle  of 


4:14  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

self-government  over  State  affairs,  and  against  the  use  of  the  power  of 
amendment  to  change  that  principle.  My  doctrine  is  better  stated  than  I 
can  state  it,  in  the  speech  of  Judge  Thomas,  of  Massachusetts,  from  which 
I  quote,  when  he  says  : 

"  Whoever  else  may  falter,  I  must  stand  by  the  Constitution.  I  am  not  wise  enough 
to  build  a  better.  I  am  not  rash  enough  to  experiment  on  a  nation's  life.  There  is  to  me 
no  hope  of  our  country  but  in  this  system  of  many  States  and  one  nation,  working  in 
their  respective  spheres,  as  if  the  divine  hand  had  moulded  them  and  set  them  in  motion. 
To  this  system  the  integrity  of  the  States  is  as  essential  as  that  of  the  central  power. 
Their  life  is  one  life.  A  consolidated  Government  for  this  vast  country  would  be  essen 
tially  a  despotic  Government,  democratic  in  name,  but  kept  buoyant  by  corruption  and 
efficient  by  the  sword.  Desiring  the  extinction  of  slavery  with  my  whole  mind  and  heart, 
I  watch  the  working  of  events  with  devout  gratitude  and  patience.  By  no  rash  act  of 
ours,  much  less  any  radical  change  in  the  Constitution,  shall  we  hasten  the  desired  result. 
If  in  the  pursuit  of  objects,  however  humane  ;  if  beguiled  by  the  flatteries  of  hope  or  of 
shallow  self-conceit ;  if  impelled  by  our  hatred  of  treason  and  desire  of  vengeance  or  ret 
ribution  ;  if  seduced  by  the  '  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence,'  we  yield  to  such  change, 
we  shall  destroy  the  best  hope  of  freemen  and  slave,  and  the  best  hope  of  humanity  this 
side  the  grave." 

The  Federal  system,  unamended,  embraces  three  classes  of  functions : 
first,  those  concerning  the  relations  of  the  United  States  to  foreign  na 
tions  ;  second,  those  concerning  the  relations  between  the  States  and  their 
citizens  respectively ;  and  third,  certain  powers  which,  though  belonging 
to  the  same  departments  of  Government,  to  be  useful  and  effective  must 
be  general  and  uniform  in  their  operation  throughout  the  country.  The 
effort  is  now  to  make  the  abolition  of  slavery  a  function  of  the  national 
Government.  If  you  begin  upon  this  domain,  where  is  the  limit  to  the  ex 
ercise  of  this  plenary  amendatory  power  in  domestic  affairs  ?  Should  we 
amend  the  Constitution  so  as  to  change  the  relation  of  parent  and  child, 
guardian  and  ward,  husband  and  wife,  the  laws  of  inheritance,  the  laws 
of  legitimacy?  Because  we  have  the  power  must  we  seize  it?  Where 
will  it  end,  when  once  begun?  Is  it,  then,  a  question  of  slavery,  or  is  it 
a  question  of  home  freedom  in  home  affairs ;  a  State  question  in  State  af 
fairs  ;  a  police  question,  concerning  municipal  and  not  Federal  institutions  ? 
If  we  may  change  the  relation  of  the  blacks  to  the  whites  in  one  respect, 
may  we  not  in  another?  May  we  not  change  the  Constitution  to  give 
them  suffrage  in  States  in  spite  of  all  State  laws  to  the  contrary  ?  Must 
we  not  amend  the  Constitution  to  allow  the  importation  of  freed  blacks 
into  States  like  Illinois  and  Indiana?  Must  we  not  declare  all  State  laws 
based  on  their  political  inequality  with  the  white  race  null  and  void?.  If 
you  begin  with  this  amendment,  what  laws  are  to  be  passed  to  carry  it 
out?  Do  you  not  break  down,  by  this  amendment,  the  distinction  between 
the  spheres  of  the  State  and  national  Governments,  which  is  characteris 
tic  of  our  system,  as  old  as  our  Union  ?  If  so,  are  we  not  asked  to  change 
the  system,  rather  than  to  abolish  slavery? 

Hence,  I  do  not  place  my  suggestions  about  this  measure  on  any 
ground  of  the  immutability  of  the  Constitution,  or  of  our  peculiar  system. 
I  place  my  vote  against  it,  because  the  system  it  would  change  is  a  good 
one,  made  in  wisdom  and  to  be  perpetuated  for  the  future  happiness  of  the 
people.  If  the  system  of  internal  police  over  State  matters  is  not  of  value, 
discard  it  altogether.  Deny  to  Ohio  her  right  to  declare  who  are  born  in 
wedlock,  and  who  may  inherit  estates ;  deny  to  us  the  right  to  have  our 


CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING   SLAVERY.  415 

home  courts  for  home  justice  ;  centralize  all  power  here,  in  on^  head, 
and  make  the  federation  a  despotic  tyranny.  I  may  admit  the  wrong  of 
slavery.  It  may  be  heinous  in  sight  of  God  and  man.  I  may  admit  the 
power  by  amendment  to  abolish  it.  I  am  a  radical  Democrat,  and  believe 
in  amendments  of  all  organic  laws  in  pursuance  of  the  mode  prescribed. 
I  may  admit  that  such  an  amendment  would  impair  only  for  a  brief  time 
the  checks  and  balances,  the  very  substance  and  essence  of  our  federative 
system ;  and  yet  I  ask  you,  on  the  other  side,  whether,  if  I  believed  that 
this  amendment  would  place  an  impediment,  insuperable  to  the  restoration 
of  the  Union,  I  ought  to  vote  for  it?  If  I  believed  that  the  rebel  author 
ities  would  not  meet  us  in  convention,  and  would  stand  out  against  the  Union 
on  their  independence,  I  might  consider  anew  what  I  ought  to  do.  I  have 
no  authentic  information  in  that  regard.  So  long  as  there  is  a  faint  hope 
of  a  returning  Union,  I  will  not  place  obstacles  in  the  path.  I  will  rather 
illuminate,  cheer,  and  clear  the  pathway  to  the  old  homestead.  If  I  be 
lieved,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  peace  could  be  restored  with  the  Union  by  the 
abolition  of  slavery,  I  would  vote  for  it.  All  I  do  and  all  I  forbear  to  do 
is  to  save  our  imperilled  Government,  and  restore  our  priceless  Union. 
Show  me  that  that  will  be  the  result,  and  I  will  vote  for  your  amendment. 
But,  as  it  stands  to-day,  I  believe  that  this  amendment  is  an  obstacle  to 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  States.  So  believing,  I  cannot  give  my  vote  for 
it,  nor  would  any  honest  patriot  ask  me  to  give  a  vote  for  a  measure 
which  I  believe  would  bring  about  a  separation  or  delay  the  union  of  the 
States. 

But  if  it  is  determined  in  the  South,  as  it  seems  to  be,  that  rather  than 
fail  in  independence,  slavery  shall  go,  I  for  one,  as  a  Democrat,  shall  be 
ready  to  reconsider  my  resolution.  The  party  to  which  I  belong  loves 
the  Union  as  dearly  as  the  South  loves  slavery.  If  they  can  let  slavery 
go  for  independence,  the  Democracy  can  for  the  sake  of  the  Union. 
If  the  South  refuse  to  meet  us  in  convention  and  abide  by  its  arbitrament, 
then  there  is  no  hope  for  slavery.  If  the  South  obtain  independence,  it 
will  be  by  freedom  to  the  slaves  and  their  enrolment  as  soldiers.  If  they 
do  not  obtain  their  independence,  between  the  collisions  of  the  belligerents 
the  institution  will  be  gone,  and  then  it  matters  little  what  becomes  of  this 
amendment,  so  far  as  its  own  peculiar  subject  is  concerned.  So  far  as 
the  Union  slaveholding  States  are  concerned,  they  are  rendering  this 
amendment  useless.  Missouri  yesterday  almost  unanimously  voted  to 
abolish  slavery.  Maryland  has  already  done  it,  whether  by  force  or  free 
dom  it  is  not  now  my  purpose  to  inquire.  Kentucky  will  be  enforced  to 
do  the  same.  What  remains?  Little  Delaware.  She  had  in  1860 
eighteen  hundred  slaves,  and  the  enlisting  agents  have  mostly  sold  them 
out  to  this  humanitarian  Government  for  soldiers,  costing  $150  apiece  in 
Delaware,  and  selling  for  $1,000  in  New  York  !  Surely  Delaware  will 
soon  be  free ! 

It  may,  with  some  propriety,  be  urged  that  slavery  is  already  dead.  It 
has  the  seeds  of  speedy  dissolution.  The  blows  of  war  are  breaking  down 
its  panting,  exhausted  body.  If,  then,  as  it  is  said  by  the  gentleman  from 
Vermont  [Mr.  MORRILL],  slavery  is  dead,  what  is  the  object  of  this  amend 
ment?  That  distinguished  gentleman  told  us  the  other  day  that,  like 
Pharaoh  and  his  hosts,  the  South  had  rushed  with  slavery  into  the  Red  Sea 


416  EIGHT   YEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

of  war^  and  that  slavery  was  destroyed.  "Well,  if  that  be  the  case,  if 
slavery  is  dead,  where  is  the  necessity  for  invoking  this  extraordinary 
power  of  amendment?  My  friend  from  New  York  [Mr.  ODELL],  who 
also  spoke  so  well  in  defence  of  his  views,  said  that  although  it  was  dead 
he  wished  to  give  it  a  constitutional  burial.  I  am  not  much  of  a  biblical 
scholar,  but  I  believe  that  we  have  no  authentic  record  of  the  fact  that 
after  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts  were  destroyed  in  the  Red  Sea,  the  children  of 
Israel  met  together  upon  its  shores,  in  grand  convocation,  and,  after  lis 
tening  to  Aaron  and  the  other  orators,  passed  resolutions  somewhat  like 
this  amendment,  to  wit : 

"  Resolved,  That  neither  Pharaoh  nor  his  hosts,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime 
whereof  they  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  hereafter  exist  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  children  of  Israel."  [Laughter.] 

What  would  be  thought  of  the  children  of  Israel  for  passing  such  a 
resolution  after  the  decease  of  Pharaoh  ?  My  friend  from  New  York  [Mr. 
ODELL]  belongs  to  the  new  and  kind  dispensation,  and  would  give  the 
deceased  slavery  a  constitutional  burial.  What  would  have  been  thought 
of  the  children  of  Israel  if,  after  they  had  fished  out  Pharaoh's  dead  body, 
they  had  proceeded  solemnly  to  give  to  it  a  constitutional  burial?  [Laugh 
ter.]  Hence  this  amendment,  according  to  the  argument  of  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side,  amounts  to  nothing.  It  is  a  mere  brutum  fulmen.  It  is 
only  the  register,  in  other  words,  of  what  the  war  power  with  its  blows  is 
accomplishing,  day  by  day.  If  gentlemen  opposite  really  believed  that 
slavery  was  dead,  they  would  not  bring  in  this  amendment.  They  do  not 
believe  it.  But  there  are  men  on  that  side  of  the  chamber  who  will  not 
favor  a  restoration  of  the  States  until  this  amendment  shall  have  become 
an  organic  law.  Therefore  it  is  that  they  pertinaciously  press  this  matter, 
even  while  negotiations  are  going  on  for  the  return  of  the  States  to  a  na 
tional  convention,  and  for  the  return  of  peace  and  fraternity  among  the 
States. 

Is  it  said  that  this  amendment  is  needed  to  anticipate  the  South,  and 
thus  secure  the  smiles  of  civilized  Europe?  I  trim  my  votes  for  no  such 
delusive  gales.  The  Powers  of  Europe  will  not  be  less  eager  to  dis 
sever  our  Republic  in  the  event  of  abolition  by  us  than  now.  The  philan 
thropy  of  Europe  is  very  problematical.  Let  us  take  care  of  ourselves. 
Let  us  preserve  the  form  and  functions,  and  thus  the  strength,  of  our  Gov 
ernment  ;  and  the  unity  of  our  States  will  be  as  hard  to  break  as  the 
ridges  of  our  everlasting  mountains  ! 

"  Our  Union  is  river,  lake,  ocean,  and  sky  ; 
Man  breaks  not  the  medal  when  God  cuts  the  die  !  " 


YIIL 
THE  CABINET  IN  CONGRESS. 

ITS   CONSTITUTIONALITY — THE   PRACTICE  AND   PRECEDENTS — INFORMATION 

DERIVABLE   FROM   THE   ADMISSION   OF   THE    CABINET ABSORPTION    OF 

THE    POWER    OF    THE    LEGISLATURE    BY    THE    EXECUTIVE ITS    EFFECT 

ON  STATE  RIGHTS TIME  OF  WAR  UNFORTUNATE  FOR  SUCH  A  CHANGE 

DANGERS    OF   INTIMACY    BETWEEN    LEGISLATIVE    AND    EXECUTIVE     DE 
PARTMENTS VETO  POWER CUSTOM  IN  OTHER  COUNTRIES — RELATIONS 

OF   THE  DIFFERENT  DEPARTMENTS — BRITISH  CONSTITUTION  IN  THIS  RE 
SPECT ITS    HISTORY ENGLISH     HABITS     IN     PARLIAMENT TITTLEBAT 

TITMOUSE,  M.  P. — A  CABINET  PICTURE — ELEVATION  OF  PARLIAMENTARY 
ORATORY  AND    STATESMANSHIP. 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  January  26,  18C5. 

"  Men  are  naturally  propense  to  corruption ;  and  if  he  whose  will  and  interest  it  is  to 
corrupt  men,  be  furnished  with  the  means,  he  will  never  fail  to  do  it.  Power,  honors, 
riches,  and  the  pleasures  that  attend  them,  are  the  baits  by  which  men  are  drawn  to  pre 
fer  a  personal  interest  before  the  public  good." — Algernon  Sidney. 

THE  House  having  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  joint  resolu 
tion  reported  by  Mr.  PENDLETON,to  provide  that  the  heads  of  Executive  De 
partments  may  occupy  seats  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
Mr.  Cox  said :  Mr.  Speaker,  the  House  is  under  obligations  to  the  com 
mittee  for  presenting  this  measure.  Great  good  and  no  harm  will  come 
from  a  free  and  full  discussion  of  the  distribution  of  the  powers  of  the 
Government.  In  all  innovations  the  burden  is  upon  those  who  propose 
them  to  show  their  utility.  The  committee  have  proposed'  to  change  the 
machinery  of  our  Government  in  two  ways :  first,  that  the  heads  of  De 
partments  shall  have  at  all  times  the  right  to  occupy  seats  and  participate 
in  debate  upon  all  matters  relating  to  the  business  of  their  departments ; 
secondly,  that  on  two  days  of  the  week  they  shall  attend  the  Hou<?e  and 
give  information  on  all  questions  submitted  to  them.  I  propose  to  discuss 
the  question  in  the  following  order  :  First,  to  answer  the  report ;  second, 
to  show  the  dangers  of  this  innovation. 
27 


4:18  EIGHT   YEAKS    IN   CONGRESS. 

I.  To  answer  the  report.  Under  this  head  I  consider,  first,  the  con 
stitutionality  of  the  measure.  The  committee  entertain  no  doubt  on  this 
head.  There  is  no  provision  against  it  in  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  re 
garded  as  part  of  that  power  by  which  a  each  House  may  determine  the 
rules  of  its  proceedings."  I  will  not  contest  our  power  to  pass  the  resolu 
tion.  But  the  discussion  of  its  merits  will  show  that  its  passage  will  be 
an  infraction  of  the  spirit  if  not  of  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  which 
provides  that  no  "  person  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States  shall 
be  a  member  of  either  House  during  his  continuance  in  office."  The  same 
reasoning  upon  which  this  clause  of  disqualification  is  founded  should  for 
bid  the  admission  of  the  Cabinet  into  Congress,  either  to  debate  or  answer 
inquiries.  I  shall  show  that  there  is  a  stronger  reason  for  the  rejection 
of  this  measure  than  for  the  rejection  of  the  Cabinet  as  members.  That 
stronger  reason  is,  that  in  cas*e  of  membership  they  are  liable  to  expulsion 
and  censure,  responsible  to  their  constituents,  who  hold  over  them  the  rod 
of  public  opinion,  backed  by  suffrage ;  while  in  the  other  case  they  are 
responsible  to  no  one  for  tlkeir  official  tenure  but  the  Chief  Executive, 
whose  subordinates  and  servants  they  are.  A  hundred  censures  cannot 
move  them  from  their  places.  So  long  as  they  suit  the  President,  they 
can  contemn  the  severest  criticism  and  loudest  anathemas  of  Congress. 
When  this  clause  of  disqualification  for  membership  was  adopted  it  met 
with  no  opposition  in  the  Convention.  So  says  Judge  Story.  He  adds 
further : 

1 '  It  has  been  deemed  by  one  commentator  an  admirable  provision  against  venality, 
though  not  perhaps  sufficiently  guarded  to  prevent  evasion.  And  it  has  been  elaborately 
vindicated  by  another  with  uncommon  earnestness." — 1  Story,  p.  310,  sec.  440. 

And  here  it  may  be  proper  to  say  that  the  committee  have  invoked 
the  wisdom  and  learning  of  Judge  Story  to  sustain  their  views.  This  is 
a  mistake.  The  committee  have  quoted  only  the  arguments  presented  by 
him  in  favor  of  that  side.  He  states,  with  equal  point,  the  arguments 
upon  the  other,  leaving  the  decision  to  the  judgment  of  the  student.  The 
committee  have  not  done  justice  to  the  question  in  thus  presenting  the 
case.  I  will  supply  the  omission  by  citing  the  omitted  portions  : 

"  The  other  part  of  the  clause,  which  disqualifies  persons  holding  any  office  under  the 
United  States  from  being  members  of  either  House  during  their  continuation  in  office,  has 
been  still  more  universally  applauded  ;  and  has  been  vindicated  upon  the  highest  grounds 
of  public  policy.  It  is  doubtless  founded  in  a  deference  to  State  jealousy  and  a  sincere 
desire  to  obviate  the  fears,  real  or  imaginary,  that  the  General  Government  would  obtain 
an  undue  preference  over  the  State  Governments.  It  has  also  the  strong  recommendation 
that  it  prevents  any  undue  influence  from  office,  either  upon  the  party  himself  or  those 
with  whom  he  is  associated  in  legislative  deliberations." 

And  after  the  passage  quoted  by  the  committee,  he  proceeds  to  say : 

"  Such  is  the  reasoning  by  which  many  enlightened  statesmen  have  not  only  been  led 
to  doubt,  but  eveit  to  deny  the  value  of  this  constitutional  disqualification.  And  even  the 
most  strenuous  advocates  of  it  are  compelled  so  far  to  admit  its  force  as  to  concede  that 
the  measures  of  the  Executive  Government,  so  far  as  they  fall  within  the  immediate  de 
partment  of  a  particular  office,  might  be  more  directly  and  fully  explained  on  the  floor  of 
the  House.  Still,  however,  the  reasoning  from  the  British  practice  has  not  been  deemed 
satisfactory  by  the  public ;  and  the  guard  interposed  by  the  Constitution  has  been  re 
ceived  with  general  approbation,  and  has  been  thought  to  have  worked  well  during  our 
experience  under  the  national  Government.  Indeed,  the  strongly  marked  parties  in  the 


TIIE   CABINET   IN   CONGRESS.  419 

British  Parliament,  and  their  consequent  dissensions,  have  been  ascribed  to  the  non-exist 
ence  of  any  such  restraints ;  and  the  progress  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  and  the 
supposed  corruptions  of  legislation,  have  been  by  some  writers  traced  back  to  the  same 
original  blemish.  Whether  these  inferences  are  borne  out  by  historical  facts  is  a  matter 
upon  which  different  judgments  may  arrive  at  different  conclusions  ;  and  a  work  like  the 
present  is  not  the  proper  place  to  discuss  them." — 1  Story,  pp.  313,  314. 

So  that  we  may  draw  from  these  citations  four  reasons  against  the 
measures  proposed  by  the  committee  :  first,  the  extreme  party  dissensions, 
owing  to  the  presence  of  executive  agents  in  the  House ;  second,  the  pro 
gress  of  the  undue  influence  of  the  Executive  ;  third,  the  corruptions  of 
the  Legislature ;  fourth,  a  well-grounded  jealousy  of  Federal  predomi 
nance  over  State  Governments.  But  to  me  the  principal  reason  is  the 
undue  and  corrupting  influence  of  such  a  connection  upon  both  the  Cabi 
net  and  Congress.  If  this  reasoning  be  found  valid,  then  the  Constitution 
is  violated  in  its  essential  spirit  by  the  disturbance  of  that  healthful  equi 
librium  between  the  Legislature  and  Executive  which  it  was  designed  by 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  to  avoid.  But  of  these  points  I  will  speak 
particularly  hereafter. 

Second  :  The  practice  and  precedents  referred  to  by  the  committee. 

The  committee  appeal  to  legislation  and  practice — to  the  law  of  1787 
— authorizing  the  head  of  the  Treasury  to  make  report  in  person  or  in 
writing,  to  either  branch.  Because  of  these  precedents  they  regard  the 
power  as  unquestioned.  The  fact  that  this  law  and  custom,  used  in  1789 
by  the  Departments  of  State  and  of  the  Treasury,  and  yet  unrepealed,  has 
fallen  into  desuetude,  is  rather  evidence  that  not  only  has  the  guard  of  the 
Constitution  been  regarded  as  salutary  as  against  membership,  but,  by 
"  general  approbation,"  against  the  entree  of  the  Cabinet  into  the  debates 
and  deliberation  of  Congress.  At  least,  as  Judge  Story  says,  the  reason 
ing  from  the  British  practice  has  not  been  deemed  satisfactory  by  the  pub 
lic.  In  fact,  as  I  shall  show,  the  British  experience  led  to  their  exclusion 
here.  And  yet  the  "  rules,"  say  the  committee,  "  now  recommended  are 
almost  identical  with  those  of  the  British  House  of  Commons."  The  gen 
tleman  from  Vermont  [Mr.  MORKILL]  has  most  thoroughly  answered  this 
portion  of  the  report. 

Third :  As  to  the  influence  of  the  Executive  upon  the  Legislature. 
The  committee  state  that  the  object  of  the  resolution  is  to  influence  legis 
lation  by  the  Executive.  They  would  recognize  that  influence  and  give  it 
authority.  Assuming  that  such  an  influence  will,  does,  and  must  exist, 
they  propose  to  make  it  open,  official,  and  honorable,  instead  of  secret,  un 
recognized,  and  liable  to  abuse.  This  sort  of  argument  would  find  its  par 
value  in  an  argument  like  the  following  :  Robbery  in  the  shape  of  burglary 
will  exist.  It  is  all  wrong,  but  it  exists.  Let  us  recognize  the  fact,  and 
by  law  make  it  open,  honorable,  and  authoritative,  instead  of  secret,  noc 
turnal,  and  liable  to  be  abused.  Let  us  authorize  highway  robbery  as 
something  bold  and  romantic.  Or,  prostitution  exists,  secret  and  danger 
ous  ;  let  us  license  and  legalize  it ;  and  the  practice,  so  deleterious  when 
secret,  will  lose  its  depravity  when  open.  Executive  influence  upon  legis 
lation  is  wrong,  dangerous,  and  subversive  of  freedom.  It  exists,  but  is 
now  covert  and  dangerous ;  let  us  make  it  open,  bold,  and  authoritative, 
and  it  will  be  innoxious. 


420  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

If  the  mode  were  constitutional  and  it  would  dignify  and  purify  the 
executive  influence,  I  might  vote  for  it.  But  I  cannot  see  that  because 
you  increase  the  opportunities  of  executive  contact  with  the  Legislature 
you  diminish  the  contagion  and  the  fatal  corruption  as  its  consequence. 
Because  you  debar  the  Cabinet  member  from  a  vote,  do  you  prevent  his 
influence  in  the  House?  If  you  require  open  debate,  do  you  stop  secret 
intrigue  ?  Did  not  Walpole  debate  and  corrupt  the  House  ?  Did  not  the 
younger  Pitt  defy  Parliament  even  in  debate,  and  coerce  the  Commons? 
The  whipper-in  on  a  division,  the  manager  of  the  House,  were  not  these 
incident  to  open  and  authorized  discussion?  The  Government  felt  more 
interest  in  the  result  of  the  vote,  because  it  had  been  called  directly  to 
the  bar.  It  stopped  at  no  means  to  secure  its  triumph.  The  threats  of 
the  third  George  again  and  again  to  leave  the  island  and  to  place  those 
under  the  royal  ban  who  voted  against  his  measures,  was  the  accompani 
ment  of  the  fiercest  wrangles  of  Parliament  and  the  most  open  arraign 
ment  of  ministers.  I  admit  that  if  the  influence  of  the  Executive  is 
desirable  in  our  legislation,  it  should  be  open,  declared,  and  authorized, 
rather  than  secret,  concealed,  and  unauthorized.  But  this  resolution  fa 
cilitates  the  secrecy  and  authorizes  the  influence  which  we  deprecate  and 
should  prevent. 

Fourthly :  As  to  the  information  to  be  derived  from  the  admission  of 
the  Cabinet,  and  the  cases  cited  by  the  committee.  Two  objects  are  sought 
by  this  measure,  say  the  committee  :  first,  general  debate  ;  second,  infor 
mation  from  Cabinet  officers.  Both  are  included  in  the  second  specifica 
tion.  If  the  object  were  only  information,  we  have  the  means  provided 
already.  Conferences  by  committees  with  the  Departments  furnish  one 
medium.  The. citations  appended  to  the  report  of  the  committee  show  that 
this  is  almost  always  a  prerequisite  to  the  maturing  of  measures.  In  the 
cases  cited  on  pages  11,  12,  13,  et  seq.,  of  the  report,  the  complaints  were, 
not  that  the  Departments  would  not  furnish  information  or  recommend 
measures,  but  that  in  those  particular  instances  the  information  was  not 
definite  or  the  recommendation  made  in  writing.  But  the  debates  in  those 
cases  show  that  such  information  and  recommendation  were  easily  ob 
tained.  In  the  cases  of  the  legal  tender  and  gold  bills,  the  debate  brought 
out  the  letters  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  In  the  case  of  the  loan 
bill,  the  instance  cited  is  most  unfortunate  as  an  argument  for  this  meas 
ure.  The  appearance  of  the  Secretary  and  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  upon  the  floor  of  the  Hous.e  had  the  effect  of  subverting  the 
judgment  of  the  House.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  had  moved 
that  the  interest  of  the  bonds  should  be  paid  in  currency.  It  was  carried 
by  twenty-one  majority.  When  reported  to  the  House,  lo  !  it  was  defeated 
f>9  to  81,  a  change  of  forty-two  on  a  question  as  to  which  the  House  were 
informed  of  the  facts,  and  as  to  which  the  executive  officers  only  expressed 
their  wish  and  opinion  !  What  humiliation  !  No  undue  arguments  were 
used.  No  bribe  or  corruption  is  charged.  Simply  their  presence  on  the 
floor  turned  the  heads  of  forty-two  statesmen !  If  their  casual  visit  and 
the  expression  of  a  wish  without  argumentation  could  work  such  wonders, 
what  sort  of  a  body  would  we  become  with  the  presence  of  the  Cabinet 
here  twice  a  week  for  information  and  at  all  times  for  debate  and  influ 
ence?  The  other  instance  cited  is  senatorial,  on  the  bounty  question. 


THE   CABINET   IN   CONGRESS.  421 

The  only  trouble  in  that  case  was,  that  the  chairman  of  the  Military 
Committee  had  missed  seeing  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  failed  to  possess 
himself  of  any  authentic  letter  or  recommendation  of  the  Department. 
No  one  doubted  but  that  he  might  have  received  the  information.  The 
point  was,  not  that  the  recommendation  was  not  made,  but,  as  Senator 
CLARK  said  (page  17),  the  information  had  not  been  asked  for,  and,  as 
Senator  GRIMES  said,  there  had  been  no  action  of  the  Administration  on 
the  subject,  or  at  least  no  unity  of -action.  Afterwards,  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Stanton  was  read,  and  the  difficulty  properly  obviated.  So  far,  then,  as 
the  Congress  requires  information  and  advice  from  the  Departments,  they 
can  always  obtain  it,  perhaps  in  over-abundance.  If  it  come  not  in  the 
graces  of  oratory,  it  will  come  in  the  more  pithy,  and,  in  this  age,  more 
useful,  and,  in  this  House,  indispensable,  form  of  writing  and  printing.  If 
the  ordinary  reports  of  the  Departments  and  the  answers  to  resolutions  of 
inquiry  are  not  sufficient,  will  not  these  informal  interviews  of  members 
and  committees  with  the  heads  of  Departments  answer  every  purpose  ?  If 
the  object  of  the  measure  is  information,  we  have  the  media  now.  If  it 
be  to  influence  action,  that  influence  must  be  for  good  or  evil.  If  for 
good,  always  and  inevitably,  Congress  is  utterly  inconsequential  and  insig 
nificant — a  registering  body,  a  contemptible  and  expensive  nonentity,  worse 
than  the  fifth  wheel  to  a  coach.  For  what,  sir,  is  the  need  of  Congress 
if  all  the  recommendations  of  the  Executive  are  to  be  invariably  followed? 
Better  dispense  with  all  legislation,  or  make  our  system  conform  to  that 
cited  by  the  committee  from  Europe  and  South  America,  where,  except 
in  England  (owing  to  peculiar  circumstances  hereafter  considered),  the 
Legislature  is  the  tool  of  the  ministry,  as  the  ministry  too  often  is  the  tool 
of  the  monarchy.  If  the  Cabinet  influence  is  generally  good  and  only  ex- 
ceptionably  vicious,  we  have  the  means  already  of  reaching  its  valuable 
suggestions,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  enlarge  its  sphere  of  evil.  But  if  the 
influence  of  the  Executive  is  generally  evil,  corrupting  to  both  Cabinet 
and  Congress,  aggrandizing  unduly  one  department  of  power  to  the  detri 
ment  of  another,  and  consequently  to  the  derangement  of  our  system,  and 
if  it  is  only  occasionally  good,  then  we  are  bound  not  only  to  prevent  but 
to  guard  with  extreme  jealousy  every  attempt  to  encroach  with  such  influ 
ence  upon  the  province  of  the  Legislature. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  have  submitted,  I  meet  the  two  propositions 
of  the  committee  as  elaborated  by  them  :  First,  that  Congress  should  avail 
itself  of  the  best  possible  means  of  information  in  relation  to  measures  ; 
for  do  we  not  have  at  our  command  all  that  we  could  get  by  the  presence 
of  the  Cabinet  in  the  House?  Second,  as  to  the  character  of  the  influence 
of  the  Executive  upon  the  Legislature  ;  for  have  I  not  shown  that  this 
measure  will  not  prevent  its  being  secret,  corruptive,  or  unauthorized? 

Fifthly  :  A  few  words  as  to  the  argument  ab  inconvenienti.  The  com 
mittee  somewhat  anticipate  this  objection.  They  say  (page  5)  that  "  it 
has  been  said  that  the  time  of  the  Secretaries  would  be  so  engrossed  that 
they  could  not  attend  to  the  discharge  of  their  other  duties.  If  this  shall 
prove  true,  they  must  have  more  assistance."  It  is  answer  enough  to  ap 
peal  to  members  as  to  the  condition  of  their  own  business  now  before  the 
Departments.  They  are  nearly  all  behind.  We  must  have  the  ear  of 
the  heads  of  Departments  ;  and  if  they  are  compelled  to  attend  here,  and 


422  EIGHT   YEAAS  IN   CONGRESS. 

take  part  in  debates,  what  time  will  they  have,  even  with  the  aid  of  the  assist 
ants  we  have  already  given,  to  attend  to  Department  business  ?  But  I  leave 
to  others  the  elaboration  of  this  argument.  I  say  nothing  now  about  their 
appearance  and  speaking  here  delaying  our  own  labor.  That  would  ap 
propriately  come  under  the  argumentum  ad  misericordiam  [laughter],  for 
it  would  be  intolerably  irksome  to  have  their  explanations  and  speeches 
here  on  all  .questions  raised. 

II.  I  might  rest  the  argument  here.  But  I  believe  this  measure  is 
fraught  with  great  danger.  It  is  a  step  toward  the  absorption  of  the 
power  of  Congress  by  the  Executive,  and  therefore  a  step  not  to  be  coun 
tenanced  either  at  this  time  or  at  any  other  time.  On  this  head  I  con 
sider  its  effect,  first,  on  State  rights.  If,  as  I  assume,  this  measure  in 
creases  the  executive  influence  and  absorbs  the  legislative,  it  tends  to  ag 
grandize  and  consolidate  power  in  the  Federal  Executive,  and  makes  the 
array  against  the  States  much  more  formidable,  and  subtracts  from  them 
their  proper  influence  in  the  economy  of  our  Government.  Some  of  the 
committee  are  looked  upon  as  strong  defenders  of  the  reserved  rights  of 
the  States.  They  look  with  apprehension  on  the  encroachments  of  the 
Federal  Government  upon  the  ungranted  domain  of  the  States.  It  is  for 
such  that  Judge  Story's  argument  is  emphatic,  when  he  says  that  "  the 
restrictions  upon  executive  connection  with  the  legislature,  were  founded 
in  deference  to  State  jealousy,  and  a  sincere  desire  to  obviate  the  fears, 
real  or  imaginary,  that  the  General  Government  would  obtain  an  undue 
preference  over  the  State  Governments."  The  gentleman  from  Vermont 
[Mr.  MORRILL]  has  shown  the  views  taken  by  the  earlier  statesmen,  coin 
ciding  with  this  view  of  Judge  Story.  I  need  not  recite  them.  The  com 
mittee  in  their  report  seem  not  to  have  anticipated  this  argument.  It  is 
left  for  the  disciples  of  Hamilton,  like  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  to  de 
fend  State  rights.  Surely,  if  you  magnify  and  energize  the  Federal  Ex 
ecutive  by  an  unequal  aggregation  of  powers  in  that  office  at  the  expense 
of  the  Congress,  you  begin  the  work  of  consolidation.  You  give  to  power 
new  material,  until  upon  the  ruins  of  our  old  system  of  a  just  distribution 
of  power,  you  erect  a  throne  of  paramount  power  whose  sovereign  occu 
pant  in  his  supremacy  would  rob  the  States  of  their  rights  to  aggrandize 
his  own  splendor.  This  plan,  therefore,  tends  to  create  the  same  laws, 
the  same  kind  of  dependence,  consequently  the  same  notions  and  the  same 
interests,  throughout  all  the  country  with  its  diverse  interests ;  for  the 
power  it  would  strengthen  is  the  Executive,  which  is  not,  like  the  Sen 
ate  or  the  Congress,  representative  of  States  and  localities,  but  in  a  sense 
more  nearly  representative  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Second  :  The  time  is  unfortunate  for  such  a  radical  change  as  that  pro 
posed.  Herein  lies  one  of  its  dangers.  It  is  a  time  of  war.  The  Ex 
ecutive  in  such  a  time  tends  to  enlarge  its  powers.  This  is  not  altogether 
avoidable.  It  then  calls  to  its  aid  all  the  sophistry  of  necessity.  It  is  the 
old  Satanic  plea.  With  an  army  of  nearly  a  million,  and  a  patronage  of 
$3,000,000  per  diem,  and  with  a  corps  of  ambitious  men — placemen  and 
contractors — hanging  about  the  chambers  of  power,  desirous  to  placate 
the  supreme  will  and  to  enjoy  its  favors,  is  it  surprising  that  in  time  of 
war  the  dispensing  power  should  grow  colossal,  overshadowing  all  other 
departments  and  absorbing  all  other  sovereignties?  Yet  it  is  at  such  a 


THE   CABINET  IN   CONGRESS.  423 

time,  that  the  committee  propose  a  measure  which  tends  to  increase  the 
Executive.  I  know  that  the  committee  think  that  its  effect  will  be  other 
wise,  and  give  as  a  reason  that  power  exercised  openly  in  Congress  will 
find  its  antagonism  and  barrier  in  honest  deference  to  public  opinion,  and 
be  restrained  in  its  own  disposition  to  increase.  But  is  that  the  effect  of 
the  exercise  of  power  by  this  Executive  ?  In  the  face  of  a  most  earnest 
protest  from  every  press  and  every  public  man  who  has  not  slavishly 
bowed  to  its  behests  simply  because  it  was  power ;  in  spite  of  the  protest 
of  nearly  two  millions  of  people,  the  power  of  the  President  expands 
boldly,  openly,  and  flagrantly.  Patronage  is  more  powerful  than  logic. 
Necessity  crushes  the  free  press  and  arrests  free  speech.  Would  the 
habeas  corpus  be  abolished,  all  the  restraints  of  personal  freedom  be  an 
nulled,  and  our  prisons  groan  with  victims,  except  in  time  of  war?  The 
power  which,  in  time  of  peace,  was  a  toy  for  a  lady's  hand,  like  the  tent  of 
the  faerie,  enlarges  in  time  of  war,  so  that  great  armies  repose  beneath  its 
folds.  When  did  the  executive  power  in  England  most  overshadow  and 
defy  public  opinion?  The  Crown  augmented  when  Pitt  defied  the  people 
and  their  Parliament ;  then  king  and  minister  became  absolute.  The 
wise  commentator,  Thomas  Erskine  May  (Constitutional  History,  volume 
1,  page  82),  in  drawing  his  picture  of  this  era  of  English  history,  draws 
also  a  conclusion  similar  to  the  one  which  I  now  declare,  when  he  says  : 

"  A  war  is  generally  favorable  to  authority  by  bringing  together  the  people  and  the 
Government  in  a  common  cause  and  combined  exertions.  The  French  war,  notwithstand 
ing  its  heavy  burdens  and  numerous  failures,  was  popular  on  account  of  the  principles  it 
was  supposed  to  represent ;  and  the  vast  expenditure,  if  it  distressed  the  people,  multi 
plied  the  patronage  of  the  Crown,  afforded  a  rich  harvest  for  contractors,  and  made  the 
fortunes  of  farmers  and  manufacturers  by  raising  the  price  of  every  description  of  pro 
duce.  The  '  moneyed  class '  rallied  round  the  war  minister,  bought  seats  in  Parliament 
with  their  sudden  gains,  ranged  themselves  in  a  strong  phalanx  behind  their  leader, 
cheered  his  speeches,  and  voted  for  him  on  every  division.  Their  zeal  was  rewarded  with 
peerages,  baronetcies,  patronage,  and  all  the  good  things  which  an  inordinate  expenditure 
enabled  him  to  dispense.  For  years  opposition  in  Parliament  to  a  minister  thus  supported 
was  an  idle  form  ;  and  if  beyond  its  walls  the  voice  of  complaint  was  raised,  the  arm  of 
the  law  was  strong  and  swift  to  silence  it.  To  oppose  the  minister  had  become  high 
treason  to  the  State." 

To  oppose  the  minister  in  open  Parliament,  in  free  debate,  in  time 
of  war,  when  power  found  its  antagonists  and  barriers,  as  it  to-day 
finds  them  here,  was  accounted  high  treason !  Yet,  say  the  commit 
tee,  the  rules  now  recommended — now,  in  time  of  most  gigantic  war — 
are  almost  identical  with  those  of  the  British  House  of  Commons  !  Iden 
tical,  sir,  with  a  system  which  not  only  made  war  almost  perpetual  by 
filling  the  Legislature  with  placemen,  pensioners,  claqueurs,  and  contract 
ors,  rewarding  them  with  peerages,  baronetcies,  patronage,  and  all  the 
good  things  which  come  from  an  inordinate  expenditure,  but  which  made 
the  opposition  a  mere  form  in  the  Legislature,  and  stifled  it  with  oppres 
sion  when  raised  outside  of  the  Legislature  !  Is  it  to  this  system  that  the 
committee  would  assimilate  our  own  Congress?  God  forbid  ! 

Third  :  I  now  consider  the  dangers  of  the  intimacy  between  the  Ex 
ecutive  and  the  Legislature.  If  even  the  rights  of  the  States  were  safe, 
and  even  if  this  were  a  time  of  peace,  still  I  would,  as  a  Democrat,  as  a 
Republican,  never  allow  the  Executive  to  approach  any  nearer  the  Legis 
lature  than  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  movement  of  each  in  their  own 


424  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

well-defined  circuit.  As  with  nature,  so  with  institutions.  Of  two  plants 
in  the  vicinity  of  each  other,  the  fruit  of  one  will  lose  its  peculiar  flavor 
and  be  assimilated  to  the  taste  of  the  other,  if  that  other  have  the  stronger 
fiber  and  the  richer  nutriment.  So  in  the  stellar  world,  the  lesser  lu 
minary  will,  unless  restrained,  fly  toward  the  greater,  to  be  by  it  ab 
sorbed. 

The  committee  say  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  did  not  intend 
to  establish  an  absolute  separation  of  the  legislative  and  executive  de 
partments.  This  is  true.  The  separation  is  not  absolute ;  if  it  were, 
they  could  not  subsist  in  the  same  system.  But  I  affirm  that  they  endeav 
ored  by  every  guard  to  allow  just  as  little  connection  between  the  parts 
as  would  enable  the  Govermcnt  in  its  entirety  to  perform  its  functions. 

The  committee  instance  the  veto  power  to  show  that  there  is  a  con 
nection  between  the  law-making  and  law-executing  departments.  The 
argument  proves  too  much.  The  veto  of  the  President  is  the  limit  of  the 
presidential  interference,  and  its  exercise  is  allowed  only  after  the  law  is 
passed ;  and  even  then,  after  the  Executive  has  exhausted  his  reasons  for 
the  veto,  he  may  be  overruled  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds.  If  the  Executive, 
by  his  agents  of  the  Cabinet,  exert  his  influence  in  the  making  of  laws, 
where  is  the  necessity  for  the  veto  ?  His  veto  is  then  an  absurdity.  So 
Judge  Story  regards  it.  The  veto  is  the  Executive  arm  for  the  defence 
of  its  own  powers.  The  Legislature  is  presumed  to  have  no  desire  to 
favor  them.  When  laws  are  passed  by  a  Legislature  misled  by  a  love' 
of  power,  a  spirit  of  faction,  a  political  impulse,  or  a  persuasive  in 
fluence,  local  or  sectional,  which  may  not  reach  the  Executive,  he  being 
the  representative  of  the  nation  in  the  aggregate,  then  the  veto  has  its 
use.  Says  Story,  vol.  i.,  page  32  : 

"  He  will  have  an  opportunity  soberly  to  examine  the  acts  and  resolutions  passed  by 
the  Legislature,  not  having  partaken  of  the  feelings  or  combinations  which  have  procured 
their  2)a$sage,  and  thus  to  correct  what  will  sometimes  be  wrong,  from  interference  as  well 
as  design." 

His  responsibility  is  independent  of  Congress.  To  join  his  duties 
with  law-making  is  to  destroy  his  responsibility  and  derange  the  pro 
per  distribution  of  powers.  Go  one  step  further.  Suppose  a  law  of 
great  value  passed,  then  vetoed  ;  nevertheless  two-thirds  of  Congress 
favor  it ;  but  in  come  the  Cabinet,  and  by  threat,  bribery,  promises  of 
patronage,  and  gifts  of  honor,  the  legislative  will  is  subordinated :  are 
not  the  people  robbed  of  their  fair  right  in  the  Legislature?  Voting  is 
not  the  only  way  of  making  laws.  Voting  presupposes  influences.  Vot 
ing  is  but  the  sign  of  what  has  been  done.  If  these  influences  are  reached 
by  Cabinet  cajolery  or  honeyed  blandishments  from  the  masters  of  patron 
age  and  fountains  of  honor,  the  influence  is  not  less,  but  rather  greater, 
than  if  the  Cabinet  had  the  right  to  vote.  Indeed,  some  Governments 
which  allow  the  ministry  to  have  the  entree  to  the  Legislature  expressly 
and  strangely  forbid  their  presence  when  the  vote  comes  off.  This  is  the 
case  in  Brazil,  Costa  Rica,  Portugal,  and  Spain.  But  what  guard  is  there 
in  such  cases — for  the  influence  is  exerted  generally  before  and  not  at  the 
vote  ?  Still,  even  these  guards  show  the  jealousy  of  the  Legislature  against 
the  dominating  influences  of  the  Executive,  even  in  such  monarchical 
countries. 


THE   CABINET  IN   CONGKESS.  425 

What  thcD  arc  the  relations  which  the  three  departments  of  our  Gov 
ernment  sustain  to  each  other?  How  are  they  intended  to  act  in  har 
mony?  Mr.  Madison  has  considered  this  matter  in  Nos.  47  and  48  of  the 
Federalist.  The  distinctness  and  separation  of  the  three  departments  is 
by  him,  as  it  was  by  Montesquieu,  regarded  as  an  essential  precaution  in 
favor  of  liberty.  He  was  careful  to  show  that  the  several  departments  of 
power  were  so  distributed  and  blended  in  our  system  as  at  once  to  preserve 
symmetry  and  beauty  of  form,  and  to  prevent  any  part  of  it  from  being 
exposed  to  the  danger  of  being  crushed  by  the  disproportionate  weight  of 
other  parts.  He  regarded  the  accumulation  of  powers,  legislative,  execu 
tive,  and  judicial,  in  the  same  hands,  as  the  very  essence  of  tyranny. 
Hence,  if  there  be  any  approach  toward  such  accumulation,  my  argument 
is  that  there  is  an  approach  toward  tyranny.  If  there  can  be  no  liberty 
where  the  Legislature  and  Executive  are  one,  is  not  liberty  endangered 
when  you  absorb  an  essential  function  or  feature  of  one  by  the  other? 
Says  Montesquieu : 

"  There  can  be  no  liberty  when  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  are  united  in  the 
same  body  or  person,  because  apprehensions  may  arise  lest  the  same  monarch  or  senate 
may  enact  tyrannical  laws  to  execute  them  in  a  tyrannical  manner  ;  or  were  the  power  of 
judging  joined  with  the  legislative,  the  life  and  liberty  of  the  subject  would  be  exposed 
to  arbitrary  control,  for  the  judge  would  then  be  legislator.  Were  it  joined  to  the  execu 
tive,  the  judge  might  have  all  the  violence  of  the  oppressor." 

Mr.  Madison  draws  from  the  several  constitutions  of  the  States  as  then 
existing,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Del 
aware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  others,  to  show  that  the  several  depart 
ments  are  inhibited  from  exercising  the  powers  of  either  of  the  other 
departments.  The  language  of  these  early  constitutions  yet  remains  in 
our  present  constitutions.  Not  a  single  State  of  this  large  Confederacy 
has  ever  in  its  constitutions  so  departed  from  the  model  of  the  Federal 
Legislature  as  to  allow  the  membership  of  the  Executive  (Gushing,  page 
610),  or  of  his  aids  in  administration,  or  even  their  presence  for  debate 
or  influence.  Massachusetts  early  declared  this  fundamental  article  of 
liberty : 

"  That  the  legislative  department  shall  never  exercise  the  executive  and  judicial  pow 
ers,  or  either  of  them  ;  the  executive  shall  never  exercise  the  legislative  and  judicial  pow 
ers,  or  either  of  them ;  the  judicial  shall  never  exercise  the  legislative  and  executive 
powers,  or  either  of  them." 

The  jealousy  of  uniting  one  department  with  another  has  been  carried 
so  far,  that  the  departments  have  been  only  so  far  connected  and  blended 
as  to  give  to  each  a  constitutional  control  over  the  other.  This  is  the  de 
gree  of  separation  essential  to  a  free  Government.  Allow  this,  and  you 
will  have  no  despotic  Congress  with  its  many  heads  ;  no  Congress  depend 
ent  on  one  head ;  you  will  have  no  irresponsible  judiciary,  and  no  arbi 
trary  Executive.  If  the  Executive  can  use  his  appliances  at  will  upon  a 
legislature,  either  by  intrigue  or  debate,  then  the  legislature  becomes  the 
executive  tool ;  and  although  its  own  powrers  may  expand,  yet  if  used  by  the 
Executive,  the  growth  of  legislative  privilege  is  the  increase  of  the  execu 
tive  prerogative.  If  it  be  propen  to  call  the  Cabinet  to  the  lower  House, 
why  should  not  some  portion  of  ft  be  called  to  the  Senate  ?  Is  it  because 
the  model  of  the  British  Constitution  has  carried  away  the  committee  ? 


426  EIGHT   TEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

If  it  be  proper  to  call  the  Cabinet  to  the  House,  why  not  call  in  the  Pres 
ident  ?  We  have  no  ministry  as  in  England.  The  President  is  responsi 
ble,  and  he  only.  The  Cabinet  are  but  the  ministers  of  his  will.  He  can 
dismiss  them  at  pleasure.  They  have  no  policy.  If  it  be  proper  to  call 
the  Cabinet,  why  not  the  Commander-in-Chief  ?  Why  not  summon  Gen 
eral  Grant  to  sit  here,  and  to  answer  the  inquiries  of  civilians  in  search 
of  military  news  and  strategy?  Why  not?  For  the  reason  that  all  mili 
tary  officers  are  kept  without  the  Senate-house.  Because  they  are  the 
hands  of  the  Executive,  and  liberty  permits  no  brute  force  to  overawe  or 
dictate.  If  the  commander  of  the  army  is  the  mailed  hand  of  the  Execu 
tive,  is  not  the  Secretary  of  State  also  his  hand  gloved  in  silk?  Ah  !  Is 
there  more  danger  from  the  iron  hand  than  the  silken  glove?  But  if  it 
be  proper  to  call  in  the  Cabinet,  why  not  call  in  the  Supreme  Court,  or  its 
chief  ?  Do  the  committee  wish  to  copy  the  British  precedent,  where  the 
law  lords  can  advise,  though  they  do  not  vote  with  the  legislator?  Why 
not  then  admit  the  Chief  Justice?  Ask  him  as  to  the  legality  of  confisca- 
cation,  legal  tender,  belligerency,  and  the  new  questions  which  this  civil 
war  is  causing?  The  committee  refer  us,  with  a  smile,  no  doubt,  from 
its  complaisant  chairman  [Mr.  PENDLETON]  to  Hayti  for  our  guidance. 
[Laughter.]  That  precedent  was  intended  for  the  other  side  of  the  House. 
I  accept  it  in  all  earnestness.  In  Hayti,  the  secretary  of  state  and  the 
grand  judge  are,  by  the  constitution,  the  orators  charged  with  representing 
the  executive  by  oral  communication  to  both  houses.  Why  not  send  for 
Mr.  Chase,  along  with  Mr.  Seward,  and  here  let  them  struggle  for  the 
next  Presidency  before  the  people's  Representatives  ? 

III.  The  committee  inform  us  that  if  the  rules  be  defective,  or  limit 
too  narrowly  the  right  of  debate,  changes  can  hereafter  be  made.  They 
take  the  British  House  of  Commons  for  their  model,  and  they  assert  that 
the  "  rules  now  recommended  are  almost  identical."  If  that  be  the  case, 
the  changes  should  involve  an  entirely  new  system  of  accountability  among 
the  departments  of  our  Government.  Indeed,  our  form  of  Government 
would  then  need  a  radical  change.  Judge  Story  says  (Commentaries,  vol. 
i.,  page  392)  that 

"  The  whole  structure  of  cur  Government  is  so  entirely  different,  and  the  elements  of 
which  it  is  composed  are  so  dissimilar  from  that  of  England,  that  no  argument  can  be 
drawn  from  the  practice  of  the  latter  to  assist  us  in  a  just  arrangement  of  the  executive 
authority." 

In  England  one  branch  of  Parliament,  the  Commons,  is  ostensibly  su 
preme.  If  not  corrupted,  or  made  dependent  on  the  Crown  by  intimida 
tion,  it  is  the  ruling  power  of  the  realm.  Though  the  Crown  may  appoint 
the  ministry,  it  is  the  Parliament  which  dethrones  them  by  a  vote  of 
"  want  of  confidence."  There  is  no  responsibility  for  any  act  of  adminis 
tration  upon  the  Crown.  The  sanctity  of  the  Crown  forbids  it  to  be 
wrong.  Ministers  are  toppled  over,  but  the  throne  remains ;  hence  the 
real  power  over  the  Executive,  if  not  corrupted,  is  in  the  Commons.  The 
ministry  is  the  fountain  of  honor  and  patronage  in  fact,  though  the  Crown 
may  be  in  name  ;  hence  the  putrescent  corruptions  which  have  made  the 
history  of  English  legislation  so  infamous.  Not  so  in  this  country.  We 
have  no  ministry  here,  and  no  premier.  The  Cabinet  have  power  and  do 
advise  the  President,  but  he,  and  not  Congress,  can  alone  displace  them. 


THE   CABINET  IN  CONGRESS.  427 

Hence  in  our  system  the  President  has  the  power  of  the  Crown  and  the 
ministry  both,  and  is  above  the  reach  of  the  Commons  or  the  Congress. 
In  England  the  Queen  only  has  the  power  to  name  the  ministry ;  the  Par 
liament  has  the  power  to  direct  its  policy  and  compel  its  resignation  ;  yet 
this  measure  would  enhance  the  power  of  the  President,  making  him  not 
only  monarch  and  ministry,  but  potential  in  the  Legislature.  Add  to  this 
his  power  to  appoint  judges,  and  the  tendency  is  to  unite  all  functions  in 
one,  which,  as  I  have  said,  is  the  definition  of  tyranny.  If  the  committee 
would  then  assimilate  our  practice  with  English  rules,  let  them  alter  the 
Constitution,  and  require  the  Cabinet  to  be  responsible  to  Congress,  and 
the  President  and  his  Cabinet  to  abdicate  when  his  policy  is  condemned. 
When  you  do  this,  do  you  not  change  the  very  essence  of  our  Govern 
ment  ?  The  President  represents  the  aggregate  people  ;  Congress  repre 
sents  States  in  the  Senate,  and  the  people  of  the  States  in  the  House. 
The  President  is  elected  for  four  years.  We  take  him  for  better  or  for 
worse.  We  may  have  a  Congress  in  opposition  to  his  policy  for  four 
years  ;  and  nothing  we  can  do  will  prevent  it,  unless  we,  by  usurpation 
and  by  a  corrupt  judiciary,  intrench  on  his  powers,  or  he,  by  intrigue, 
usurpation,  or  obsequious  judges,  is  enabled  to  rob  Congress  of  its  powers. 
He  may  veto  laws  and  appoint  judges  ;  that  is  the  limit  of  his  control  over 
the  Legislature  and  the  judiciary.  If  his  agents  approach  the  fountain, 
and  there  at  its  source  endeavor  to  influence  the  making  of  law,  does  he 
not  become  an  intermeddler  ?  Whether  he  does  this  by  his  military  force 
or  his  cunning  management,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  Wisely,  there 
fore,  our  fathers,  looking  at  English  history  at  a  time  when  a  corrupt  and 
imbecile  ministry  were  illustrating  how  easy  it  was  for  a  stubborn  king  to 
rule  a  subservient  Parliament  by  the  presence  of  a  pliant  minister  or  a 
strong  will,  forbade  the  membership  of  the  Administration  in  the  House, 
and  for  a  stronger  reason  should  have  forbidden  their  presence  there. 
They  saw,  as  an  old  writer  says  (Craftsman,  No.  440),  "the  king  and 
his  council,  by  means  of  liveries  and  retainers,  bring  the  whole  kingdom  to 
be  of  his  livery  ;"  or,  as  Lord  Bolingbroke  said  to  Walpole,  they  made  the 
Parliament  like  slaves  in  a  galley,  united  by  their  chains  and  tugging  the 
oar  together  at  the  sound  of  the  ministerial  whistle.  Seeing  this  in  Eng 
land,  as  the  very  cause  of  their  own  troubles  with  the  parent  country,  they 
were  jealous  of  such  influences  here.  They  may  not  have  distrusted  the 
first  Presidents  ;  but  they  would  not  allow  an  opportunity  for  the  invasion 
of  their  oAvn  privileges  or  the  public  liberties.  It  was  not  the  attack  they 
feared  from  the  first  Executives  which  led  them  to  keep  the  Administra 
tion  aloof  from  the  Legislature,  but  they  would  not  allow  the  breach,  how 
ever  small,  in  the  rampart,  through  which  an  attack  at  some  time  might 
be  made. 

This  principle,  together  with  the  English  practice,  leads  me,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  be  jealous  of  our  privileges  and  powers.  Indeed,  sir,  I  am 
not  particularly  enamored  of  any  thing  English  now.  I  do  not  like  Eng 
lish  delight  over  our  troubles ;  English  cannon  when  found  in  Fort 
Fisher ;  English  ships  of  war  destroying  our  commerce  under  a  hostile 
flag ;  English  recognition  of  belligerency.  All  that  is  admirable  in  the 
English  manners,  literature,  and  laws  I  love  and  cherish,  but  this  system 
of  the  committee  is  neither  admirable  nor  desirable. 


428  EIGHT   YEARS    JN   CONGRESS. 

If  there  is  one  feature  in  English  history  more  marked  than  another, 
it  is  the  constant  conflict  of  centuries  between  the  kingly  prerogative  and 
the  parliamentary  privilege.  In  the  earlier  times  of  the  Plantagenets  the 
motto  obtained,  that  to  be  royal  is  to  be  loyal ;  the  will  of  the  king  to  be 
the  will  of  the  law :  "  Que  veut  le  roy,  ce  veut  la  loy"  And  although 
under  the  earlier  kings,  especially  those  most  destitute  of  principle,  the 
liberty  of  the  people  in  the  Parliament  received  its  most  efficacious  sup 
port  ;  although  Magna  Charta  came  in  John's  rule,  and  Habeas  Corpus 
in  the  time  of  the  second  Charles,  yet  the  royal  prerogative  was  broken 
by  its  inordinate  strain  by  such  monarchs,  and  liberty  gained.  It  was 
enough  for  the  king  to  be  the  fountain  of  honor  and  patronage,  of  pardon 
and  power,  generalissimo  of  the  army,  and  source  of  all  foreign  embassies 
and  treaties.  The  Commons,  therefore,  in  early  times,  united  with  the 
people  and  the  nobility  against  the  power  of  the  Crown  ;  and  from  having 
been  called  from  boroughs  and  towns  originally  to  provide  only  for  the 
wants  of  the  king  (De  Lolme,  volume  second,  page  511),  they  became  so 
powerful  that  ministers  fell  before  their  votes  and  voice.  Upon  their  fiat 
hung  the  lives  even  of  the  ministers.  The  king  himself  was  supposed  by 
a  fiction  always  to  be  present  in  Parliament,  really  or  by  representatives  ; 
and  even  he  was  made  liable,  on  a  memorable  occasion,  to  the  power  of 
the  Commons  by  impeachment  and  death.  But  at  last  the  popular  ele 
ment  by  the  Revolution  of  1G88  became  paramount.  At  least  then  began 
the  struggle,  which,  after  great  convulsions,  fixed  the  Crown,  through  the 
ministers,  as  the  instruments  of  and  amenable  to  Pjarliament.  But  this 
cannot  be  so  in  this  Government,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Congress 
has  no  control  over  the  Cabinet.  The  extent  and  duration  of  the  Exec 
utive,  as  to  time  and  power,  is  clearly  defined  in  our  written  Constitution. 
Therefore  no  analogies  can  be  drawn  from  English  precedents,  except 
those  which  show  how  power  tends  to  increase  in  the  Executive  or  minis 
try  whenever  it  has  the  opportunity  to  use  its  appliances,  or  which  show 
that  the  temptation  to  corruption  is  apt  to  be  embraced  when  the  object  is 
near  and  the  lure  enticing.  In  illustrating  this  part  of  my  argument,  my 
only  embarrassment  is  in  the  opulence  of  the  illustrations  from  English 
history.  I  do  not  select  a  few  cases  because  they  are  so  glaring.  Nor  do 
I  value  in  an  argument  a  few  exceptional  cases  ;  non  ego  panels  offendar 
maculis.  From  the  very  beginning  of  the  English  Government  until  now, 
laws  were  passed  to  regulate  elections  and  prevent  the  kingly  influence 
upon  the  Commons.  In  the  time  of  the  Lancaster  kings  such  statutes  were 
common.  "What  else,"  asks  Bolingbroke  (Craftsman,  No.  440),  "  do 
all  these  resolutions,  declarations,  and  acts  mean  from  the  time  of  Richard 
II.  to  these  days,  against  the  influence  of  the  Crown  on  the  elections  or 
on  the  members  of  Parliament  ?  "  He  answers  by  saying,  that  a  prince 
may  govern  according  to  his  arbitrary  will,  or  that  of  his  more  arbitrary 
minister,  as  absolutely  and  much  more  securely  with  than  without  the 
concurrence  of  a  Parliament.  He  can  do  this  in  two  ways :  either  by 
the  strain  of  his  prerogative,  or  by  the  corruption  of  the  Commons  ;  and 
the  instrument  for  both  means,  as  shown  by  English  history,  lias  been  an 
obsequious,  audacious,  or  corrupt  ministry  sitting  in  Parliament.  In  the 
earlier  eras  of  English  history,  the  stretch  of  the  prerogative  was  the 
means  used  to  overawe  Parliaments.  Not  alone  by  the  threat  upon  mem- 


THE   CABINET  IN   CONGRESS.  429 

bers,  but  by  acts  of  imprisonment  and  decapitation ;  not  alone  by  the 
threat  but  by  the  act  of  dishonor  and  sequestration,  were  the  annals  of 
Parliament  sullied.  In  later  times,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688,  the 
civil  list  had  increased,  and  with  it  the  means  of  corruption ;  and  not 
alone  by  indirect  bribes  in  stocks,  lotteries,  pensions,  places,  and  honors, 
but  by  a  wanton  lavishness  of  douceurs,  directly  given  to  members,  the 
German  princes  on  the  English  throne,  and  their  ministers,  controlled 
the  Commons.  This  corruption  extended  then,  as  it  does  now,  from  the 
House  to  the  hustings,  from  the  Parliament  to  the  people,  until  the  Eng 
lish  Parliament  reeked,  and  in  spite  of  all  reform  bills  and  bribery  acts, 
yet  reeks,  with  the  astounding  rottenness  of  its  representatives  and  elect 
ors.  The  only  reason  why  in  earlier  times,  as  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
this  same  corruption  did  not  exist,  is  given  by  Hallam  (volume  three, 
page  43),  that  there  did  not  then  exist  the  means  of  that  splendid  corrup 
tion  which  emulated  the  Crassi  and  Buculli  of  Rome.  Whereas,  in  1571, 
a  member  bought  his  seat  for  Westbury  for  £4  ;  an  election  in  York,  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  cost  £150,000  !  The  elections  were  controlled  by 
the  officers  of  the  Government.  It  became  necessary,  to  save  the  Consti 
tution,-  to  reform  these  abuses,  and  the  English  statute  book  groans  with 
laws  against  placemen  sitting  in  Parliament,  against  revenue  officers 
having  the  right  of  suffrage,  the  disfranchisement  of  boroughs,  and  penalty 
on  members  for  bribery.  The  Revolution  of  1688  prevented  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  English  system ;  for  it  limited  the  prerogative.  It  declared 
against  making  kings  independent  of  Parliament  by  prerogative,  but  it 
substituted  therefor  a  system  which  made  Parliament  dependent  on  kings  by 
corruption.  Which  was  the  easiest  mode  to  destroy  liberty,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
ask  at  a  time  when  the  executive  influence  not  only  has  been  exceeding  its 
constitutional  limit  in  this  country,  but  when  the  means  of  corruption  are 
as  a  thousand  to  one  in  this  country  compared  with  England.  Indeed,  in 
the  time  of  Walpole  it  was  contended  that  the  Parliament  should  corruptly 
depend  on  the  Crown,  as  the  expedient  to  supply  the  want  of  power  denied 
to  the  Crown  by  the  Revolution.  Even  so  good  a  moralist  as  Paley  justi 
fied  the  use  of  patronage  to  influence  Parliament. 

In  glancing  at  this  history,  I  will  arrange  a  few  salient  illustrations 
under  these  heads :  first,  the  attempts  by  executive  intimidation  and 
power  to  overawe  the  Commons  ;  second,  by  corruption  of  the  people  and 
of  the  Commons  to  create  a  dependency  on  their  part  upon  the  Crown. 

First :  Most  of  the  valuable  privileges  enjoyed  by  the  House  of  Com 
mons  is  due,  not  to  the  presence  of  the  ministry,  nor  to  the  monarchical 
part  of  the  Constitution,  but  to  the  vigilant  perseverance  of  the  tribunes  of 
the  people  in  spite  of  all  the  threats  and  penalties  of  the  Crown.  As  early 
as  Edward  III.,  it  was  customary  to  imprison  members  for  freedom  of 
speech  ;  but  this,  like  other  grievances,  was  redressed  in  time,  not  because 
the  ministry  were  present  to  aid,  but  because  the  Commons  protested,  and 
accompanied  their  protests  with  intimations  that  if  their  protests  were  not 
heeded,  supplies  to  the  king  would  be  wanting.  The  first  English  Coun 
cil  was  the  Witenagemote.  It  lost  its  place  in  the  government  by  the 
ambition  of  the  monarch,  who  designed  to  make  all  his  vassals,  and  none 
his  equals,  in  the  powers  of  the  State.  After  the  king  began  to  need  mil 
itary  service  and  taxation  he  called  his  Parliament,  but  used  and  disused 


430  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

it  at  pleasure.  It  was  slavishly  submissive.  "When  the  Tudors  as 
cended  the  throne,  the  contest  began  which  has  ended  in  this  reign  of 
Queen  Victoria,  in  the  subordination  of  nearly  all  executive  power  to  the 
ministry,  or  the  Parliament,  which  can  overturn  the  ministry.  Henry 
VIII.  occasionally  used  his  Parliaments,  but  used  them  through  the  per 
sonal  interference  of  Cardinal  Wolsey  in  the  House  of  Commons  (Smythe, 
vol.  i.,  p.  345).  His  son,  Edward  VI.,  by  the  influence  of  a  bad  minister 
seeking  control  of  Parliament,  issued  a  proclamation  to  influence  members 
of  Parliament ;  a  precedent  followed  afterward  by  Mary  and  by  James  L, 
and  which  in  this  country,  if  the  Executive  were  more  nearly  connected 
with  Congress,  would  follow  every  two  years,  and  certainly  every  four 
years,  especially  in  time  of  civil  war. 

Then  followed  Elizabeth's  reign.  Great  men  adorned  her  court ;  but 
around  her  crouched  a  submissive  Parliament.  Its  members  were  her 
knights,  and  not  her  statesmen.  Stie  had  her  ministry  subservient  to  her 
female  caprices  ;  and  they  "  touched  "  her  Parliament,  and  it  bowed  as  to 
an  Oriental  princess.  It  is  a  relief  to  find,  what  we  so  rarely  find  in  our 
own  times  among  the  Puritans  here,  that  old  Puritan  parliamentarian, 
Peter  Wentworth,  standing  out  of  this  gloom  by  his  conspicuous  intre 
pidity  ;  the  forerunner  of  the  Hampdens  and  Pyms  of  a  later  day.  When 
Elizabeth  strove  to  stop  legislation  by  the  queen's  pleasure,  on  religious 
matters,  he  spoke  as  follows : 

"  We  are  assembled  to  make,  or  abrogate,  such  laws  as  may  be  the  chiefest  surety, 
safe  keeping,  and  enrichment  of  this  noble  realm  of  England.  I  do  think  it  expedient  to 
open  the  commodities  (advantages)  that  grow  to  the  prince  and  the  whole  State,  by  free 
speech  used  in  this  place." 

This  he  proceeded  to  do  on  seven  different  grounds,  and  he  concluded : 

"  That  in  this  House,  which  is  termed  a  place  of  free  speech,  there  is  nothing  so  neces 
sary  for  the  preservation  of  the  Prince  and  State  as  free  speech  ;  and  without  this,  it  is  a 
scorn  and  mockery  to  call  it  a  Parliament-house,  for  in  truth  it  is  none,  but  a  very  school 
of  flattery  and  dissimulation,  and  so  a  fit  place  to  serve  the  devil  and  his  angels  in,  and 
not  to  glorify  God  and  benefit  the  Commonwealth." 

The  House  it  seems,  out  of  a  reverent  regard  to  her  Majesty's  honor, 
stopped  him  before  he  had  fully  finished ;  and  "  he  was  sequestered  the 
House  for  the  said  speech."  Finally  he  was  sent  to  prison  ;  but  we  read 
of  him,  years  afterwards,  questioning  with  rare  courage  the  dispensing 
power  which  lost  James  II.  his  crown,  and  should  have  lost  Mr.  Lincoln 
his  election.  It  was  true  of  this  and  subsequent  reigns,  as  Dr.  Burnet 
recorded,  that  he  that  would  go  about  to  debate  her  Majesty's  prerogative, 
had  "  need  walk  warily." 

The  reign  of  the  Stuarts  is  an  era  of  conflicts,  signalized  by  the  State  craft 
of  the  kings,  and  the  protests  of  the  Commons.  The  first  Stuart,  James 
I.,  had  invaded  even  the  House,  sent  some  of  its  members  to  the  Tower, 
apd  contemplated  the  beheading  of  others.  He  had  even  torn  its  pro 
ceedings  from  the  journals.  Prerogative  went  so  far,  that  in  the  time  of 
the  first  Charles  no  Parliament  met  for  twelve  years.  Irregular  levies  of 
money  and  men,  and  the  severities  of  the  star  chamber  and  high  commis 
sion,  drove  the  people  to  exile  in  America,  and  to  despair  of  their  liberties. 
These  institutions  were  the  subservient  Parliaments  of  the  time — all  its 
members  being  the  tools  of  tyranny.  At  last  a  minister  proposed  the  ship 


THE   CABINET   IN   CONGRESS.  431 

money  tax.  Hampden  opposed ;  then  came  the  reaction  and  the  rev 
olution.  The  Parliament  conquered  ;  only  to  be  in  turn  driven  from  its 
place  by  the  Protector,  because  its  debates  were  disagreeable.  When 
the  restoration  came,  the  "  healing  Parliament "  met,  and  the  king  was 
its  suitor,  but  not  long  a  suitor.  His  ministers  were  in  Parliament. 
The  republican  element  was  weeded  out.  It  would  have  been  worse,  but 
that  the  profusion  of  Charles  II.  in  his  pleasures  was  so  great  that  "  no 
minister  could  find  sums  sufficient  to  buy  a  Parliament.  He  stood,  there 
fore,  on  his  prerogative  strained  as  far  as  he  durst,  and  made  all  the  use 
of  it  he  could."  (Craftsman,  No.  442.)  He  even  depended  on  foreign 
gold  to  bribe  his  Parliament  and  pamper  his  mistresses.  The  House  con 
tinued  eighteen  years,  a  large  number  of  members  practised  on,  and  a 
large  number  notoriously  bribed.  When  a  new  Parliament  was  called, 
its  disposition  was  so  sordid  and  the  flatteries  around  the  throne  so  detest 
able,  that  the  English  historian  blushes  as  he  records  its  slavish  submis 
sion.  Russell  and  Sidney  shine  out  of  this  time  only  by  the  halo  around 
their  martyr  brows.  When  Charles  died,  his  brother  James  II.  added  to 
this  corruption  another  strain  of  the  prerogative,  and  a  degree  of  bigotry 
which  was  wholly  his  own.  The  Parliament  of  his  time  had  been  man 
aged,  both  at  the  election  and  when  it  met ;  and  so  successfully  man 
aged,  that  when  James  looked  over  the  list  of  returns,  he  declared  that 
there  were  not  more  than  forty  names  which  he  could  have  wished  not 
there.  It  sat  a  year.  A  few  brave  words  from  Coke  of  Derby,  and  he 
was  sent  to  the  Tower  for  undutiful  reflection  on  the  king.  Then  came 
another  reaction.  It  was  sudden,  and  the  revolution  of  1688  was  accom 
plished. 

Secondly :  From  that  time,  the  influence  of  the  Crown  upon  the  Par 
liament  has  been  most  apparent  and  deleterious  by  their  corrupt  depen 
dency  on  each  other.  One  of  the  first  grievances  to  be  remedied  by  the 
new  dynasty  was  the  purification  of  the  Commons.  A  place  bill  was 
brought  in.  By  it  all  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  were  incapa 
citated  from  holding  places  of  trust  and  profit.  This  was  the  model  of 
our  constitutional  clause.  It  was  passed  in  Parliament  finally,  but  reject 
ed  by  the  king's  veto.  Mr.  Hallam  (volume  iii.,  page  187)  says : 

"  The  baneful  system  of  rendering  the  Parliament  subservient  to  the  Administration, 
either  by  offices  and  pensions  held  at  pleasure,  or  by  more  clandestine  corruption,  had  not 
ceased  with  the  house  of  Stuart.  William,  not  long  after  his  accession,  fell  into  the  worst 
part  of  this  management,  which  it  was  difficult  to  prevent,  and,  according  to  the  practice 
of  Charles's  reign,  induced  by  secret  bribes  the  leaders  of  parliamentary  opposition  to 
betray  their  cause  on  particular  questions." 

Secret  service  money  was  proved  to  have  been  used  among  members. 
Hallam  enumerates  the  facts,  and  from  them  it  will  appear  why,  even 
after  the  place  bill  failed,  a  check  was  still  put  upon  the  number  and  qual 
ity  of  placemen  in  the  lower  House.  The  proper  remedy  then  was  the 
banishment,  as  our  American  ancestors  provided,  of  all  the  servants  of 
the  Executive  from  the  legislative  councils  of  the  nation.  One  thing, 
however,  they  did  establish  in  1694  ;  the  board  of  revenue  were  incapaci 
tated  from  sitting  in  the  House.  In  1699  this  law  was  extended.  In 
1700,  by  the  act  of  settlement,  all  officers  were  excluded.  In  1706  this 
law  was  repealed,  and  but  for  this  repeal,  England  to-day  would  exclude 


432  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

the  Cabinet  altogether  ;  but  she  preserved  the  principle  and  limited  its  ex 
tension.  One  provision  she  did  establish,  which  to-day  operates  against 
an  overwhelming  influence  of  the  ministry  (Hallam,  volume  iii.,  page  191). 
Every  member  accepting  an  office'  must  vacate,  and  a  new  election  must 
be  had.  She  excluded  pensioners.  These  provisions,  says  De  Lqlme 
(volume  i.,  page  476,  &c.),  originated  from  the  continued  corruption  of 
Parliament.  An  u  act  of  security,"  limiting  the  number  of  persons  in 
office  eligible  to  Parliament,  was  enacted.  I  refer  to  these  precautions  in 
favor  of  liberty  now  as  the  argument  against  the  present  measure.  What 
was  reasonable  then,  so  long  as  human  nature  remains  the  same,  is  rea 
sonable  now.  As  De  Lolme  writes  : 

"  It  is  impossible  to  question  the  policy  of  these  enactments.  In  truth,  he  who  has 
tasted  the  sweets  of  dishonest  and  clandestine  lucre  would,  in  the  words  of  the  poet,  be 
no  more  capable  afterward  of  abstaining  from  it  than  a  dog  from  his  greasy  offal." 

Notwithstanding  all  these  precautions,  so  long  as  the  ministry  re 
mained  in  the  Commons,  corruption  was  paramount.  In  the  time  of 
Anne,  in  1712,  bills  were  again  brought  in  still  further  limiting  the  num 
ber  of  officers  of  Government  who  could  sit  in  Parliament.  Fifty  was 
proposed.  Even  that  failed  in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  principle  of 
preserving  the  influence  of  the  Crown  unhappily  prevailed.  The  same 
arguments  now  used  for  this  bill  were  used  then.  The  same  indifference 
to  personal  probity  and  political  integrity  are  observable.  Well  might 
Queen  Anne,  therefore,  dissolve  one  of  her  Parliaments.  It  was  her  pleasure 
to  admit  of  no  debate.  Out  of  this  right  arose  the  golden  dawn  of  Wai- 
pole  !  The  forecast  of  the  wise  statesmen  of  England  had  been  exerted 
in  vain.  In  vain  had  place  bills  been  again  proposed  ;  in  vain  were  elec 
tions  contested  for  bribery ;  in  vain  were  motions  to  retrench  pensions. 
George  II.  denounced  all  such  bills  as  "  villanous  ;  "  and  his  ministry  did 
not  scruple  to  send  Tories  to  the  Tower  for  contumacious  debate.  A  bishop 
declared  that  an  independent  House  of  Commons  was  as  inconsistent  as 
an  independent  king.  Truly  was  it  exemplified  ;  for  the  two  powers  be 
came  dependent  on  each  other,  made  so  by  the  golden  mean  of  the  min 
ister  who  so  long  held  his  tainted  sway.  Doubtless  Walpole  had  his 
amiable  qualities.  Some  one  says  that  he  would  have  been  held  worthy  of 
his  high  station  had  he  never  possessed  it.  The  lines  applied  to  him  are 
well  known : 

"  Seen  him  I  have,  but  in  his  happier  hour 
Of  social  converse,  ill  exchanged  for  power  ; 
Seen  him,  uncumbered  by  the  venal  tribe, 
Smile  without  art,  and  win  without  a  bribe." 

Doubtless  he  used  the  arts  of  persuasion.  His  continuance  in  power 
is  attributable  not  a  little  to  this  resource,  but  mostly  to  his  mercenary 
management.  He  rose  from  personal  merit.  He  managed  the  king  as 
well  as  the  Commons.  Places,  pensions,  bribes,  were  profusely  strewn 
along  the  aisles  of  St.  Stephen's ;  and  though  partially  hidden  from  the 
eyes  of  contemporaries  by  the  burning  of  the  papers  of  the  minister,  yet  as 
Smollett  reveals  (volume  ii.,  page  311),  the  guilty  minister  quarrelling 
with  a  confederate,  Mr.  Stanhope,  revealed  their  practice  of  selling  places 
and  reversions.  A  member  standing  up,  said  :  u  Since  they  had  by  mis 
chance  discovered  their  nakedness,  the  other  members  ought,  according  to 


THE    CABINET   IN   CONGRESS.  433 

the  custom  of  the  East,  to  turn  their  backs  upon  them."  In  his  History, 
Mr.  May  (page  300)  says  that  the  majority  of  the  House  of  Commons 
was  long  retained  in  subjection  to  this  minister  by  an  organized  system  of 
corruption.  This  system  was  continued  until  the  reign  of  George  II.  ;  and 
Lord  Bute  secured  the  aid  of  Walpole's  agent  to  keep  up  the  management 
of  the  Commons  during  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  George  III.  The 
war  with  America  never  would  have  been  undertaken  or  upheld  but  for 
the  purchase  of  Parliament  by  Lord  North.  Shops  were  opened  for  mem 
bers.  Some  years  £41,000  of  the  secret  service  were  used  to  purchase 
votes.  Stock-jobbing  and  lotteries  were  substituted  for  direct  bribes. 
Not  until  Mr.  Pitt  came  into  office  was  there  a  stop  put  to  these  infamies, 
and  then  only  for  a  time.  Contractors,  nabobs,  gold — these  are  the  words 
upon  which  the  changes  were  rung  by  Burke  and  others  pleading  for  re 
form  in  the  English  Parliament.  But  Parliament  strove  hi  vain  ;  the  age 
was  corrupted  by  war  and  avarice  ;  it  was  a  time 

"  When  infamous  Venality,  grown  bold, 
Wrote  on  its  bosom,  '  To  be  let  or  sold.'  " 

It  was  from  this  source  that  good  men  predicted  the  ruin  of  English 
liberty.  Montesquieu  said  :  "  11  pbrira  lorsque  la  puissance  legislative  sera 
plus  corrumpue  que  V  executive"  But  for  the  lash  of  the  press,  gradually 
freeing  itself  from  the  toils  of  the  time,  and  the  public  opinion  which  was 
enfranchised  by  the  French  Revolution,  the  admission  of  the  public  to  the 
Commons,  and  the  publicity  of  the  debates,  the  English  constitution  would 
either  have  been  destroyed,  or  revolution  would  have  changed  its  features 
into  something  like  our  own.  Of  all  the  instruments  of  despotism  a  paid 
Parliament  is  the  worst,  just  as  the  corruption  of  the  best  things  are  the 
worst.  "  Tyranny,"  said  Sydney  Smith,  speaking  of  .this  time,  "  is  worst 
where  a  majority  of  a  popular  assembly  are  hired,  and  a  few  bold  and  able 
men  by  their  brave  speeches  make  the  people  believe  they  are  free."  The 
secret  influence  of  the  Crown  was  at  work  through  the  influence  of  the 
younger  Pitt  all  through  the  French  wars,  and  was  sapping  by  its  corrup 
tion  the  foundation  of  English  liberty.  From  that  time  till  the  last  reform 
bill  of  1860  efforts  have  been  made  to  lessen  the  corruption  and  bribery 
of  the  English  elections  and  Parliaments,  but  in  vain.  So  long  as  men 
are  moved  by  their  interests,  so  long  will  places,  honors,  emoluments,  con 
tracts,  and  power  feed  the  servile  horde  of  mercenaries,  who  will  buy,  out 
of  the  labor  of  the  oppressed  and  tax-ridden  people,  the  very  offices  of  leg 
islation  to  prostitute  them  to  power. 

I  do  not  detain  the  House  with  the  specific  modes  by  which  the  Crown 
or  the  ministry  have  ruled  England  through  a  subordinated  Parliament. 
Sometimes  they  made  the  Speaker ;  sometimes  shut  the  opposition  mem 
bers  in  the  Tower ;  sometimes  the  king  himself,  as  George  III.  at  Ports 
mouth,  interfered  to  secure  the  election  of  his  friends  ;  sometimes  the  list 
of  Court  favorites  was  foisted  in  upon  boroughs  against  the  will  of  the 
people,  as  in  Wilkes's  case ;  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Colonels  Barre 
and  A'Court,  officers  were  deprived  of  their  commands  for  their  votes  in 
Parliament  against  taxing  America.  Lord  Shelburne  was  dismissed  from 
his  office  as  aide-de-camp  to  his  Majesty,  Mr.  Fitzherbert  from  the  Board 
of  Trade,  and  General  Conway  from  his  office  of  Groom  of  the  Bedcham- 


434:  EIGHT   TEAKS   IN   CONGRESS. 

bcr,  for  the  same  reason.  James  I.  had  committed  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  as 
Charles  I.  had  committed  Selden  and  others  to  prison,  and  the  Georges 
had  punished  all  prominent  opponents  so  far  as  they  could,  for  their  con 
duct  in  Parliament.  Everywhere  in  English  politics  do  we  find  not  only 
open  but  secret  interior  Cabinet  influence  at  work  to  assail  the  Parliament 
and  assist  the  monarch.  Even  the  elder  Pitt  bowed  so  low  to  the  king  that 
he  lost  the  dignity  of  his  character  in  his  obeisance,  while  he  shed  tears  at 
the  kindness  of  the  king  in  making  him  Lord  Chatham,  which  killed  his 
influence.  In  the  time  of  George  III.  the  king  staked  his  personal  credit 
upon  the  success  of  his  measures,  and  regarded  opposition  to  his  ministers 
as  an  act  of  disloyalty,  and  their  defeat  as  an  affront  to  himself.  (May, 
page  49.)  During  this  reign,  when  England  lost  so  much,  Lord  North  sup 
ported  the  king  against  the  aristocracy,  the  Parliament  against  the  people, 
and  the  nation  against  the  colonies.  It  was  this  influence  which  Mr. 
Bui'ke  called  "  the  perennial  spring  of  all  prodigality  and  of  all  disorder ; 
which  loads  us  with  millions  of  debt ;  which  takes  vigor  from  our  arms, 
wisdom  from  our  councils,  and  every  shadow  of  authority  and  credit  from 
the  most  venerable  parts  of  our  constitution."  Complaints  of  this  influ 
ence  did  not  stop  with  the  death  or  insanity  of  George  III.  •  England 
learned  nothing.  In  the  subsequent  reign  of  George  IV.  Mr.  Brougham 
denounced  the  same  influences  of  the  Crown.  To  it  may  justly  be  attrib 
uted  the  long  discussions  year  after  year  as  to  reforms  and  Catholic  eman 
cipation,  which  in  our  system  would  never  have  been  patiently  listened  to 
for  a  day.  Upon  the  accession  of  Victoria  the  same  jealousy  was  appar 
ent.  Sir  Robert  Peel  would  not  take  office  or  form  a  ministry  until  the 
ladies  of  the  Queen's  bedchamber  were  dismissed  ! 

But  why  enumerate  these  disgraceful  conflicts,  happily  unknown  to  our 
system  ?  We  have'  as  yet  no  corrupt  civil  lists,  no  patronage  to  influence 
Congress  directly,  no  placemen  in  Congress  who,  having  bought  their 
places,  are  ready  to  sell  their  votes  ;  no  letters  of  Washington,  Adams,  or 
Jackson  are  exhumed,  like  that  of  the  English  king,  who  wrote,  u  If  the 
Duke  requires  some  gold  pills  for  the  election,  it  would  be  wrong  not  to 
satisfy  him  ; "  no  disgraceful  traffic  in  boroughs ;  no  "  nabobs,  commis 
saries,  or  West  Indians"  here  to  buy  places  with  their  shoddy  wealth,  and 
sell  their  votes  for  rank.  But  these  may  come.  In  these  times,  when 
wealth  springs  so  suddenly  from  a  hundred  sources ;  when  contractors, 
lobbies,  speculators,  stock-jobbers,  and  millionaires  are  making  the  abyss 
so  wide  between  the  rich  and  the  poor ;  when  even  the  lean  old  earth  has 
become  as  round  as  an  alderman,  and  as  oozy  of  oil  [laughter],  may  we 
not  expect  a  mercenary  Legislature  who  will  follow  the  executive  drum 
when  it  beats  to  quarters,  even  in  this  Hall?  But  is  it  answered  that 
Congress,  like  Parliament,  holds  the  power  of  impeachment  and  the  purse 
strings  ?  England,  too,  boasted  of  this  for  her  Commons  ;  but  impeach 
ment  lias  been  rare  in  England — only  two  cases  since  the  Revolution,  and 
tin-si-  not  of  ministers,  though  their  corruption  has  been  notorious.  The 
ministers  protected  themselves  against  impeachment  by  their  presence  and 
their  patronage.  In  America  we  have  had  little  corruption  of  the  Cabinet, 
IK- •:(  use  there  has  been  no  contact  with,  or  responsibility  to  Congress,  and 
no  occasion  for  impeachment. 

But  am  I  told  that  the  Commons  have  a  veto  on  the  Crown  by  the  vote 


THE   CABINET   IN   CONGRESS.  435 

on  supplies  ?  There  is  not  a  case  since  the  Revolution,  or  at  least  but  one 
or  two,  where  the  Commons  have  failed  to  grant  just  what  ministers 
have  asked.  (May,  page  431.)  They  have  acquiesced  in  all  demands. 
Since  they  have  controlled  the  finances,  the  expenditure  has  increased 
fifty-fold,  and  a  stupendous  national  debt  has  arisen.  The  people  have 
ground  to  complain  of  their  stewardship,  but  the  Crown  and  its  ministers 
have  not.  It  will  be  so  here  invariably  when  the  heads  of  Departments 
are  invited  to  our  Halls.  The  subserviency  will  be  greater,  inasmuch  as 
our  expenditure  is  so  unexampled,  and  the  civil  war  has  so  aroused  party 
feelings.  When  that  time  comes,  we  should  so  amend  this  measure,  as  it 
was  suggested  by  Bolingbroke,  in  the  time  of  Walpole,  that  all  members, 
whose  relatives  have  been  preferred,  or  who  have  sold  their  votes,  should 
be  distinguished  by  some  outward  token,  that  the  galleries  might  note 
them,  as  you  may  know  a  horse  to  be  sold  by  colored  ribbons  on  his  bridle. 
The  committee  would  assimilate  our  system  with  that  of  England. 
Let  them  not  be  backward,  but  go  to  the  full  length  of  the  precedent.  An 
attempt  was  made  to  copy  the  English  custom  and  to  remove  our  desks 
some  few  years  ago.  It  was  tried,  and  failed.  Why  not,  at  the  same 
time,  have  our  Speaker  dressed  after  the  fashion  of  the  English  Speaker, 
in  a  silken  gown  and  a  horsehair  wig?  I  would  be  willing  to  give  my 
mileage  in  the  next  Congress  [laughter]  if  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  would  be 
willing  to  be  thus  tricked  out.  [Laughter.]  Why  not  also  have  our  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms,  Doorkeepers,  and  assistants  dressed  in  black  tights  and 
knee-buckles,  sworded  and  belted  with  authority?  Why  not  have  the 
members  sit  with  heads  covered,  except  when  rising  to  debate  ?  (Bar 
clay's  Digest,  page  78.)  Why  not  introduce  the  peculiar  exercises  by  which 
jubilant  or  impatient  members  are  wont  in  the  English  Parliament  to  greet 
the  speakers  whom  they  like  or  dislike  ?  Our  rules,  as  collated  by  Mr. 
Barclay,  or  rather  in  the  Manual  of  Jefferson  (Barclay,  page  75),  seem 
to  point  to  some  such  diversions  which  the  committee  have  overlooked : 

"  Nevertheless,  if  a  member  finds  that  it  is  not  the  inclination  of  the  House  to  hear 
him,  and  that,  by  conversation,  or  any  other  noise  [laughter],  they  endeavor  to  drown  his 
voice,  it  is  the  most  prudent  way  to  submit  to -the  pleasure  of  the  'House  and  sit  down ; 
for  it  scarcely  ever  happens  that  they  are  guilty  of  this  piece  of  ill  manners  [laughter] 
without  sufficient  reason." 

The  utility  of  such  performances  is  apparent  as  a  relief  from  the 
tedium  of  a  Cabinet  disquisition  or  a  lecture  from  the  throne  through  the 
Secretary  of  State.  It  is  recorded  in  Cobbett's  Parliamentary  History, 
in  Elizabeth's  time,  that  when  an  arrogant  ministry  demanded  subsidies 
of  the  Commons,  an  obsequious  Sergeant  Hyle  said,  "  I  marvel  much 
that  the  House  will  stand  upon  granting  a  subsidy,  when  all  we  have  is 
her  Majesty's,  at  which  the  House  hemmed,  and  laughed,  and  talked."  So 
that  there  was  in  England  a  remedy  against  ministerial  arrogance  in  the 
boisterous  clamor  of  the  Commons.  This  system  has  reached  the  highest 
refinement  in  these  later  days,  when  I  have  seen  in  Parliament  scenes  of 
indecorum  that  would  utterly  startle  any  one  but  a  Disraeli  or  a  Peel 
from  his  propriety.  Dr.  Warren,  in  that  authentic  record  of  Tittlebat 
Titmouse's  exercitations  when  elected  to  Parliament,  lias  happily  illustrated 
the  English  system.  Titmouse,  so  long  kept  down  by  modesty,  the  twin 
sister  of  merit,  brought  into  requisition  some  of  his  early  accomplishments, 


4:36  EIGHT   YEARS   IN   CONGRESS. 

and  attained  a  sudden  distinction.  He  had  been  accustomed  when  a  hab 
erdasher's  clerk  to  imitate  the  cries  of  cats,  the  squeaking  of  pigs,  the 
braying  of  donkeys,  the  yelping  of  curs,  and  the  crowing  of  cocks.  [Laugh 
ter.]  The  biographer,  in  referring  to  these  elements  of  his  genius,  says : 

"  He  could  imitate  a  bluebottle-fly  buzzing  about  the  window,  and,  lighting  upon  it,  ab 
ruptly  cease  its  little  noise,  and  anon  flying  off  again,  as  suddenly  resume  it ;  a  chicken  peer 
ing  and  picking  its  way  cautiously  among  the  growing  cabbages  ;  a  cat  at  midnight  on  the 
moonlit  tiles,  pouring  forth  the  sorrows  of  the  heart  on  account  of  the  absence  of  her 
inconstant  mate ;  a  cock,  suddenly  waking  out  of  some  horrid  dream  (it  might  be  the 
nightmare),  and,  in  the  ecstasy  of  its  fright,  crowing  as  though  it  would  split  at  once  its 
throat  and  heart,  alarming  all  mankind  ;  a  little  cur  yelping  with  mingled  fear  and  rage, 
at  the  same  time,  as  it  were,  advancing  backward,  in  view  of  a  fiendish  tom-cat  with  high- 
curved  back,  flaming  eyes,  and  spitting  fury." 

It  was  upon  a  certain  night  when  the  ministry  had  a  pitched  battle 
with  the  Opposition  that  the  opportunity  came  for  the  display  of  these 
qualities.  The  debate  waxed  hot  and  personal.  The  leader  of  the  Op 
position  was  replying  to  a  minister.  It  was  as  if  my  friend  before  me 
was  excoriating  the  war  minister  for  his  arbitrary  arrests.  [Laughter. ] 
Vehement  and  tumultuous  cheers  burst  forth  in  answer  to  his  eloquent  de 
nunciations.  The  ministry  sat  pale  and  anxious.  Closing  his  recapitu 
lation  of  points  with  frantic  energy,  he  exclaimed : 

"  And  now,  sir,  does  the  noble  Lord  opposite  talk  of  impeachment  ?  I  ask  him  in  the 
face  of  this  House,  and  of  the  whole  country,  whose  eyes  are  fixed  upon  it  with  anxiety 
and  agitation,  will  he  presume  to  repeat  his  threat,  or  will  any  one  on  his  behalf  ?  Sir,  I 
pause  for  a  reply." 

And  he  did  pause,  several  seconds  elapsing  in  dead  silence,  when  pres 
ently  a  most  astounding  and  unprecedented  sound  of  a  cock-a-doodle- 
do-o-oo  '  [great  laughter]  issued,  with  inimitable  fidelity  of  tone  and  man 
ner,  from  immediately  behind  a  noble  Lord,  who  sprang  from  his  seat  as 
if  he  had  been  shot.  Every  one  started.  Thus  a  ministry  was  saved. 
[Laughter.]  Political  importance,  never  vouchsafed  to  eloquence,  followed 
this  timely  expression.  The  member  became  famous.  English  parliament 
ary  history  received  an  example  which  our  committee  would  do  well  to 
consider  in  the  future  perfection  of  this  English  system  reported  by  them  ! 

During  the  debate  of  yesterday,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot  but  think  that 
after  the  splendid  speech  of  my  friend  from  New  York  [Mr.  BROOKS],  in  de 
fence  of  his  privilege,  he  had  the  right  to  crow  his  "  cock-a-doodle-do-o-oo." 
[Laughter.]  Or  perhaps  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  INGERSOLL], 
after  his  spontaneous  defence  of  General  Grant  [laughter],  was  entitled 
to  practise  the  same  art  of  statesmanship.  [Laughter.]  I  might  have 
called  on  the  venerable  member  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  STEVENS],  after 
his  good-natured  reply  [laughter]  to  my  friend  from  New  York  [Mr. 
BROOKS],  to  give  us  an  exulting  crow  over  his  success !  Were  I  pos 
sessed  of  such  an  accomplishment,  sir,  I  would  use  it  to  usher  in,  with 
the  notes  of  chanticleer,  a  better  dawn  for  our  country  !  But,  sir,  these 
are  arguments  rather  ad  absurdtcm.  Still,  if  we  are  to  begin  on  the  Eng 
lish  model,  where  are  we  to  stop  ? 

Let  the  committee  assimilate  our  system  altogether  with  that  of  Eng 
land.  See  how  it  will  work  practically  without  a  change  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  without  the  Cabinet  responsible  to  Congress  ;  without  their  being 


THE   CABINET  IN   CONGEES8.  437 

either  elected  when  appointed,  or  resigning  to  be  reflected  when  they 
take  office.  Place  them  here  in  our  midst !  Make  a  ministerial  bench 
across  the  way.  Remove,  as  was  done  a  few  years  ago,  these  desks. 
Allow  the  members  to  be  seated  as  in  St.  Stephen's  or  in  the  new  Houses 
on  the  Thames.  Let  me  make  the  picture — a  Cabinet  picture  for  the 
committee.  Of  course  the  heads  of  committees  should  sit  by  the  heads  of 
Departments.  My  colleague  [Mr.  H.  W.  DAVIS]  on  the  Foreign  Affairs 
would  occupy  a  seat  by  the  side  of  Mr.  Seward.  The  one  represents 
Maximilian,  the  other  Juarez,  but  no  matter.  Lovingly  they  sit.  The 
chairman  moves  to  impugn  the  statesmanship  of  the  Foreign  Secretary. 
The  House  sustain  the  committee.  Mr.  Seward  complacently  smiles  at 
the  brutumfulmen,  and  sends  his  minister  to  Mexico  to  recognize  the  em 
pire  !  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  seated  between  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania  and  the  gentleman  from  Vermont.  In  comes  the 
venerable  Secretary  of  the  Navy.  Neptune  with  his  grave  beard  and 
trident  is  not  more  solemn,  rising  from  his  saline  couch.  [Laughter.] 
The  Secretary  of  the  Interior !  Around  him  gather  the  Indian,  Land, 
and  District  Committees.  The  Attorney  and  Postmaster-General,  both 
new  as  to  the  House,  urbane  and  tremulous,  yet  confident  that  no  mis 
take  of  theirs  can  be  reached  by  Congressional  action.  The  House  is 
opened — then  is  solemnized  by  a  transcendental  prayer  to  the  Inscru 
table  Essence  whom  it  is  our  privilege  to  worship  under  the  poetic 
piety  of  an  accomplished  chaplain.  [Laughter.]  The  Journal  is  read ! 
The  Speaker  raises  his  gavel,  when  a  rumble,  like  the  temblor  which 
precedes  the  earthquake  in  volcanic  regions,  sounds  through  the  cor 
ridors  !  All  eyes  are  fixed  upon  the  door !  Voild  !  The  thundering 
Stanton  comes !  [Great  laughter.]  Upon  his  brow  the  very  feature 
of  Mars,  to  threaten  and  command  !  Room  for  the  war  minister  !  His 
flowing  beard  and  spectacled  face,  so  familiar  to  our  eyes, 

"  Assume  the  god,  affect  the  nod, 
And  seem  to  shake  the  spheres  ! "     [Laughter.] 

"What  to  him  are  the  princes  of  Begum,  referred  to  yesterday  in  de 
bate?  "What  the  princes  of  Lahore,  with  their  Koh-i-noors  ?  A  whole 
casket  of  jewels  lies  in  his  glance  ;  for  is  he  not  the  dispenser  of  $500,- 
000,000  a  year  ?  [Laughter.]  What  to  him  is  the  civil  list  of  George 
III.,  which  the  Speaker  Norton  told  the  king  was  great  beyond  example? 
Millions  hang  upon  his  smile,  where  only  thousands  hung  upon  the  smiles 
of  the  proud  monarchs  of  England  !  What  to  him  are  the  satrapies  of 
the  Indies  ?  Whole  hecatombs  of  greenbacks  daily  are  sacrificed  by  his 
order.  In  plain  attire,  but  potential  mood,  he  comes  !  Far  off  his  com 
ing  shines ;  in  form  and  seeming  but  a  man,  but  in  imagination  like  the 
angel  of  the  pit,  floating  many  a  rood  on  the  burning  marl  of  war  !  About 
him  herd  thousands  of  slaughtered  beef!  [Laughter.]  Around  him 
throng  millions  of  tons  of  forage,  guns  and  wagons,  horses  and  mules — an 
innumerable  host,  too  great  for  the  contracted  mind  of  man  ;  and  from  his 
brow  hang  bounties  for  millions,  and  honors  for  all !  Before  him  fall,  as 
before  an  oriental  throne,  the  prostrate  House.  In  vain  the  Speaker  calls 
to  order  !  In  vain  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  brandishes  the  mace.  Our  sym 
bol  falls  before  the  golden  wand  of  this  magician  of  war  !  At  length  he, 


438  EIGHT   YEAKS    Iff   CONGRESS. 

too,  deigns  to  sit.  He  is  flanked  by  my  military  colleagues  [Messrs. 
SCHENCK  and  GARFIELD],  and  the  House  is  ready  for  the  questions! 
Rare  diversion  here,  Mr.  Speaker  !  The  record  provided  by  the  Clerk  is 
produced.  My  colleague  [Mr.  SCHENCK],  or  rather  my  colleague  [Mr. 
GARFIELD],  with  that  sense  of  military  skill  and  courage  for  which  he 
is  so  distinguished,  is  the  first  to  rise  to  inquire  of  the  War  minister,  and 
not  without  embarrassment — and  the  House  is  breathless  as  he  asks — 
what?  Whether  the  blowing  out  of  the  bulkhead  of  the  Dutch  Gap  canal 
by  General  Butler  has  seriously  affected  the  backbone  of  the  rebellion  ? 
[Laughter.]  If  ay* how  many  vertebras  are  demolished,  and,  after  confer 
ence  with  the  Naval  Committee,  whether  the  canal,  in  case  of  a  tempest 
uous  sea,  is  navigable  for  double-enders,  and  whether  they  cannot  go 
either  way  therein  without  turning  round?  [Laughter.]  The  gentleman 
from  Illinois  [Mr.  WASHBURN]  would  call  up  the  head  of  the  Treasury, 
and  ask  whether  it  would  be  best  to  tax  the  whiskey  drank  in  the  last  cen 
tury,  with  a  view  to  assist  Legislatures  of  States  to  a  patriotic  choice  of  Sen 
ators  [laughter],  and  if  so,  what  amount  should  be  levied  on  the  spirits 
of  '76?  [Laughter.]  The  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means — ever 
ready  to  defend  his  positions — would  inquire,  with  the  gravity  of  Pluto's 
iron  countenance,  whether  it  would  not  be  wise  to  enact  a  law  punishing 
with  death  all  who  might  sell  peanuts  and  putty  on  any  .other  than  a  gold 
basis  ?  [Laughter.]  A  chorus  of  voices  would  inquire  whether  the  Treas 
ury  could  not  so  interpret  the  five  per  cent,  income  tax  as  to  relieve  mem 
bers  recently  defeated  from  all  tax  upon  their  mileage  in  the  next  Con 
gress  ?  [Laughter.]  Then  the  venerable  Secretary  of  the  Navy  would 
be  put  to  his  catechism.  A  member  from  Massachusetts  would  inquire 
what  effect  the  payment  of  codfish  bounties,  as  a  nursery  for  our  seamen, 
would  have  upon  the  navigation  of  the  iron-clads  !  [Laughter.]  I  might 
be  tempted  myself  to  ask  of  the  same  venerable  master  of  the  trident 
whether  the  Abyssinians  were  used  by  Cleopatra  in  her  naval  service ;  if 
so,  were  they  at  the  battle  of  the  Nile  ;  and  "  were  they  there  all  the 
while?"  [Laughter.]  If  so,  what  Pompey  thought  of  it?  [Laughter.] 
But  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  [Mr.  MORRILL],  ever  alive  to  the  inter 
ests  of  New  England,  would  inquire  triumphantly  of  Mr.  Fessenden, 
whether  the  tariff  should  not  be  so  amended  as  to  increase  the  duty  on 
dyestuffs  and  paper,  so  that,  on  a  future  issue  of  $17,000,000,000  of 
greenbacks,  the  tariff  will  be  prohibitory,  the  prices  raised,  and  a  satisfac 
tory  deficiency  be  produced  in  our  revenues?  [Laughter.]  Or  whether 
by  raising  the  price  of  dyestuffs  and  paper  the  value  of  greenbacks  in  the 
market  might  not  be  made  equal  to  the  cost  of  their  manufacture? 
[Laughter.]  But  what  a  stunning  blow  would  be  given  by  a  Democratic 
member,  who,  rising  solemnly,  should  inquire  of  the  War  Department 
what  protection,  in  case  of  foreign  war,  is  afforded  by  the  manning  of 
Forts  Warren  and  Lafayette  by  their  present  loyal  force  ;  if  so,  how 
many  are  there  at  this  time,  how  long  have  they  been  there,  and  with 
what  prospect  of  relief?  [Laughter.]  I  think  my  friend  from  Maryland 
[Mr.  HARRIS]  will  ask  that  question.  [Laughter.]  Nor  should  the 
gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  HOLM  AN],  the  most  useful  member  of  this 
House,  ever  faithful  to  the  soldier,  be  omitted  from  the  programme. 
With  what  crushing  results  could  he  inquire  of  Mr.  Stanton,  what  effect 


THE   CABINET   LN   CONGRESS.  439 

our  Democratic  efforts  here  to  increase  the  pay  of  the  soldiers  have  had  on 
the  recent  elections  ?  And  if  not,  why  not  ?  [Laughter.]  Perhaps  this, 
too,  interests  my  colleague  in  front  [Mr.  PENDLETON],  who  took  some 
interest  in  soldiers'  pay  and  the  last  election.  [Laughter.]  Or,  rising  to 
the  innocent  sublime,  the  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  GRINNELL]  should 
ask  the  Navy  Department — 

Mr.  ELDRIDGE.  What  gentleman  from  Iowa  does  the  gentleman 
mean? 

Mr.  Cox.     My  pastoral  friend.*     [Great  laughter.] 

Mr.  GRINNELL  arose  and  propounded  a  question,  inaudible  to  Mr.  Cox. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  have  no  doubt  the  question  put  by  the  gentleman  from 
Iowa  is  very  appropriate,  and  that  it  should  have  been  addressed  to  one 
of  the  Cabinet  ministers,  but  I  did  not  hear  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GRINNELL.     I  am  opposed  to  the  admission  of  Cabinet  ministers. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  know  you  are  opposed  to  it ;  but  if  they  should  come  in. 
you  would  probably  be  as  anxious  to  ask  a  question  of  them  as  of  me.  You 
would  naturally,  perhaps,  ask  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr.  Welles, 
whether  or  not  the  Argonautic  expedition  of  Admiral  Jason  would  have 
had  any  effect,  in  case  the  Golden  Fleece  had  been  captured  in  Australia, 
either  on  the  gold  market  or  the  price  of  wool  ?  [Laughter.]  I  pre 
sent  these  fanciful  questions  as  an  argumentum  ad  dbsurdum.  If  such 
questions  were  put  by  the  veterans  of  the  House,  what  might  we  not  ex 
pect  from  the  awkward  squad?  [Laughter.]  One  thing  only  they  are 
designed  to  show,  that,  ridiculous  as  they  seem,  they  are  not  more  ridi 
culous  than  the  questions  of  the  English  parliamentarians,  which  are  in 
variably  laughed  at  or  avoided. 

These  illustrations  of  the  abuse  of  the  legislative  by  the  executive 
power  are  drawn  from  a  country  where  the  Government  is  parliamentary, 
and  the  responsibility  ministerial.  In  our  country  the  Government  and 
responsibility  are  distributed  between  the  Executive  and  the  Legislature, 
and  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  ministerial  responsibility.  The  Executive 
is  responsible  to  the  people  on  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office,  and  no 
responsibility  exists  to  the  people  or  to  the  Congress  which  can,  before  that 
time,  remove  him.  But  enough  is  shown  to  conclude  that  if  the  Executive 
by  his  Cabinet  were  in  contact  with  the  Legislature,  the  people  would  lose, 
through  the  aggressions  of  power  and  the  persuasions  of  corruption,  their 
share  of  the  Government,  and  the  Legislature,  representative  of  their  in 
terests,  would  become  the  pliant  instrument  of  the  Executive.  The  demo 
cratic  elements  of  our  institutions  would  be  expunged,  and  the  power 
which  in  England  reached  Parliament  and  people  to  corrupt  and  enslave, 
would  here  be  used  for  the  same  purpose. 

The  Executive  here  is  not  above  the  motives  which  have  swayed  men 
in  high  office  in  other  times.  There  is  a  constant  tendency  in  the  Execu 
tive  to  enlarge  its  power.  The  princes  of  antiquity  used  to  deify  them 
selves.  Even  the  English  kings  "  surrounded  their  persons  with  the  jus 
divinum"  We  find  in  democratic  America  a  perpetual  ascription  of  glory 
to  power.  Even  in  this  House  I  have  heard  members  say,  "  Adopt  this 
policy,  because  our  rulers  have  ordained  it."  Indeed,  the  committee  in 

*  Mr.  Grinnell  is  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  largely  engaged  in  raising  sheep. 


440  EIGHT   YEARS    IN   CONGRESS. 

this  report  have  transfixed  several  members  of  this  House  on  this  point 
of  passive  obedience  to  the  powers.  (See  page  15.)  The  gold  bill  and 
loan  bill  are  the  acts  I  refer  to,  and  the  gentlemen  are  from  New  York 

£klr.  MORRIS],  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOOPER],  and  others.  When 
e  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  STEVENS]  spoke,  he  gave  another 
voice.  *'  I  bow,"  he  says,  "  to  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury — if  it  is  right."  I  might  well  believe  that  he  would  not  fall  into 
an  unreasoning  acquiescence  with  the  judgment  or  wish  of  any  Depart 
ment.  I  read  in  the  debates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Constitutional  Conven 
tion  in  1837,  upon  the  dangers  of  Federal  and  Cabinet  influences,  that 
when  Walter  Forward  sought  to  divorce  his  State  from  such  dangerous 
and  fatal  connection  and  patronage,  he  [Mr.  STEVENS]  gave  his  earnest 
support  to  Mr.  Forward.  I  reckon  upon  his  vote  against  this  measure, 
which  has  similar  tendencies. 

The  report  dwells  upon  the  practice  of  other  countries  besides  that  of 
England.  I  will  not  seek  to  draw  my  lessons  in  legislation  from  France, 
or  even  Italy  or  Spain.  We  know  what  degree  of  liberty  is  allowed  in 
those  lands.  I  doubt  if  France  has  made  any  progress  in  her  assemblies 
since  the  middle  ages.  It  is  related  of  the  minister  De  Marigny,  that 
wishing  to  gratify  the  king,  Philip  le  Bel,  in  a  levy  of  taxes,  he  called  the 
Assembly  of  States.  A  great  scaffold  was  erected ;  the  king,  lords,  and 
bishops,  took  their  places  on  it ;  and  the  Commons  attended  at  its  foot. 
The  minister  proposed  an  excise.  The  king,  says  an  old  chronicle,  rose 
from  his  throne  and  advanced  to  the  extremity  of  the  scaffold  that  he 
might  second  by  his  looks  the  harangue  of  his  treasurer,  and  see  who  re 
fused  arid  who  consented.  This  is  the  idea  of  the  committee.  The  Cab 
inet  will  be  here,  not  to  vote,  but,  by  their  looks,  to  second  the  demands 
of  the  President ;  and  woe  to  him  in  all  future  who  dares  to  vote  against 
the  Administration  !  The  eyes  of  the  Cabinet  will  be  upon  him.  Bas 
tiles,  towers,  imprisonments,  may  be  powerless  now  to  influence  us  ;  but 
who  has  not  constituents  of  influence  at  home,  anxious  for  the  fat  of  con 
tracts  or  the  drippings  of  office  ? 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  did  not  believe  that  this  measure  would  tend  to  in 
crease  the  power  of  the  Executive  at  the  expense  of  the  Legislature,  I 
would  have  remained  silent.  But,  sir,  in  times  like  these  I  would  be 
most  careful  of  the  purity  of  the  Legislature.  I  believe  that  in  these  days 
of  usurpation  of  power,  when  unheard-of  claims  and  inexplicable  conduct 
have  marked  the  Executive  career  ;  when  the  power  of  Congress  in  foreign 
affairs  has  .been  denied  for  our  Secretary  of  State  at  a  distant  court ; 
when  the  laws  we  pass  here  are  set  aside  by  the  minions  of  power,  and 
when  the  State  is  afflicted  with  a  civil  war,  and  its  incidents  of  expense, 
patronage,  and  increased  authority,  that  then  we  should  guard  our  portals 
as  sacred  from  the  intrusion  of  the  ministers  of  that  power  which  de 
bauches.  I  must  enter  my  negative  to  the  opportunity  for  corruption.  I 
do  not  forget  the  prayer  that  we  be  "  not  led  into  temptation."  I  base 
my  opposition  to  this  measure  on  the  depravity  of  our  nature.  I  remem 
ber  that  nations  have  fallen  when  their  rulers  yielded  to  the  lures  of  the 
mercenary.  Rome  reared  her  grandeur  by  centuries  of  virtue,,  wisdom, 
and  blood.  When  she  lost  her  virtue  she  lost  her  grandeur  and  her 
power.  Luxury  favored  corruption,  and  venality  gave  to  the  tongue  of 


THE   CABINET   IN   CONGRESS.  441 

her  Juvenals  the  fiercest  shafts  of  satire.  When  her  magistrates  were 
elected  by  bribes,  the  sentences  of  her  judges  were  purchased,  and  the 
decrees  of  her  Senate  were  sold,  then  her  liberties  fell,  and  the  mistress 
of  nations  became  the  scorn  and  prey  of  the  barbarian.  Then  she  was 
ruled  by  a  Claudius,  a  Nero,  a  Caligula,  and  a  Narcissus ;  by  ministers 
who  were  emancipated  slaves,  parasites  to  power,  and  panderers  to  rapa 
city.  Shall  such  be  the  end  of  these,  our  terrible  trials  ?  Let  us  beware 
that  we  do  not  open  the  door  to  this  mask  of  death,  this  saturnalia  of  hell. 
Whether  such  would  be  the  result  of  this  junction  of  the  Legislature  and 
the  Executive,  it  is  not  for  me  to  allege  ;  but  I  would  not  open  the 
breach,  even  if  I  were  careless  of  the  attack. 

It  is  thought  that  this  union  of  the  Cabinet  and  Congress  will  elevate 
the  standard  of  eloquence  and  statesmanship.  England  is  pointed  out  as 
an  example.  The  greatest  efforts  of  oratory  have  been  made  against 
ministerial  corruption  and  Executive  aggrandizement  even  there ;  and 
now  in  England,  where  the  system  is  in  full  operation,  the  forum  cannot 
boast  greater  names  than  those  who  opposed  these  encroachments  upon 
the  popular  assembly.  Pym,  Hampden,  Wentworth,  and  Falkland  in 
their  great  struggles  with  Charles  ;  Pulteney,  Wyndham,  and  Bolingbroke 
in  their  struggles  against  the  corruptions  of  the  time  of  Anne  ;  Chatham 
thundering  against  George  III.  and  his  minister,  and  Fox  echoing  back 
his  Demosthenic  philippics  against  the  son  of  the  great  Commoner  ;  Burke 
with  his  splendid  imagery  ;  Erskine  with  his  pure  and  earnest  style  ;  the 
finished  precision  of  Wedderburn ;  the  silver  tongue  of  Murray  ;  the 
gentle  persuasiveness  of  Wilberforce  ;  the  splendor  of  Sheridan  ;  the  wis 
dom  of  Camden  ;  the  vigor  of  Lord  Grenville  ;  the  epigram  of  Grattan  ; 
the  brilliance  of  Canning ;  the  substantial  logic  of  Peel ;  the  invective, 
pathos,  and  humor  of  O'Connell ;  the  sparkling  antithesis  of  Sheil ;  the 
masterly  force  of  Lyndhurst,  and  the  rushing  vehemence  of  Brougham,  all 
adorn  the  Parliamentary  oratory  of  England,  and  would  have  adorned  it 
still  more  had  not  the  seductions  of  power  often  led  them  to  degrade  their 
genius,  and  forget  their  inspiration  as  the  guardians  of  England's  great 
ness  and  glory.  It  is,  alas  !  too  true,  that  their  finest  efforts  were  made 
either  in  the  defence  or  prosecution  of  great  crimes  and  wrongs.  Need  I 
show  to  this  House  how  nobly  our  own  Senate  and  this  House  have  been 
graced  by  our  own  orators  ?  Their  like  will  never  more  be  seen  here, 
until  the  Executive  with  his  minions  and  millions  shall  here  creep  into  our 
free  halls,  and  by  his  corrupting  influences  call  forth  the  deep  thunders 
and  fierce  lightnings  of  a  nation's  wrath,  expressed  in  the  noble  fervor  of 
the  future  tribunes  of  the  people  ! 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  raise  my  warning  voice,  not  so  much 
against  this  measure,  but  using  it  as  the  occasion,  against  that  truckling 
subserviency  to  the  power  of  the  Executive  which  will  dethrone  the  people 
and  make  them  fit  tools  for  the  corruption  of  an  evil  day.  The  exercise 
of  arbitrary  prerogatives  may  not  be  here  enacted  ;  no  armed  troops  may 
enter  here  ;  no  arrests  may  violate  our  privileges  ;  but  if  they  do  not,  the 
evil  serpent  of  corruption  may  creep  into  our  places  and  insinuate  its  cun 
ning,  and  thus  corrupt  the  integrity  of  the  Legislature.  Members  may 
here  fall  victims  to  power,  if  not  open  and  bold,  secret  and  malevolen^ ; 
and  when  that  fall  begins,  where  will  it  end  except  in  the  fall  of  our  liber- 


442  EIGHT  YEAES   IN   CONGRESS. 

ties?  Recollect  that  in  civil  wars  moral  obligations  are  torn  asunder, 
the  peaceful  habits  of  life  and  thought  are  disturbed  and  destroyed,  and 
other  virtues  not  so  compatible  with  liberty,  but  always  compatible  with 
licentiousness,  alone  survive.  When  we  have  progressed  so  far  on  the 
path  of  military  renown  that  the  nation  will  begin  to  regard  its  best  de- 
tenders  as  its  foes,  and  the  enemy  of  its  corruption  as  the  enemy  of  its 
Constitution,  then  indeed  will  Liberty  have  lost  its  last  refuge,  perhaps 
even  here  in  this  Hall  of  the  people  ;  and  though,  like  its  devotee,  Alger 
non  Sidney,  it  may  move  with  serene  eye,  untroubled  pulse,  and  unabated 
resolve,  from  this  its  chosen  forum,  to  the  scaffold  of  its  fate,  we  may 
yet  mourn  over  its  memory,  or,  disdainful  of  its  executioner,  soar  away 
to  some  loftier  code  of  justice  and  right,  where  freedom  can  be  realized  in 
the  splendor  of  a  better  vision  ! 


THE     END. 


Any  of  these  Books  sent  free  by  mail  to  any  address  on  receipt  of  Price. 

RECENT  PUBLICATIONS 

OF 

D.  APPLETON  &  COMPANY, 

443  &  445  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK. 


Life  and  Correspondence  of  Theodore 

PARKER,  Minister  of  the  Twenty-eighth  Congregational  Society,  Boston. 
By  JOHN  WEISS.  With  two  Portraits  on  Steel,  fac-simile  of  Handwriting, 
and  nineteen  Wood  Engravings.  2  vols.,  8vo.  1,008  pages. 

"These  volumes  contain  an  account  of  Mr.  Parker's  childhood  and  self-education;  of  the 
development  of  his  theological  ideas ;  of  his  scholarly  and  philosophical  pursuits ;  and  of  his 
relation  to  the  Anti-Slavery  cause,  and  to  the  epoch  in  America  which  preceded  the  civil  war. 
His  two  visits  to  Europe  are  described  in  letters  and  extracts  from  nis  journal.  An  auto 
biographical  fragment  is  introduced  in  relation  to  Mr.  Parker's  early  life,  and  his  letters  of 
friendship  on  literary,  speculative,  and  political  topics,  are  freely  interspersed.  The  illustra 
tions  represent  scenes  connected  with  various  periods  of  Mr.  Parker's  life,  the  houses  he  dwelt 
in,  his  country  haunts,  the  meeting  house,  his  library,  and  the  Music  Hall  in  which  he 
preached." 

Catechism  of  the  Steam  Engine, 

In  its  various  Applications  to  Mines,  Mills,  Steam  Navigation,  Railways,  and 
Agriculture.  With  Practical  Instructions  for  the  Manufacture  and  Manage 
ment  of  Engines  of  every  Class.  By  JOHN  BOURNE,  C/-  E.  New  and  Re 
vised  Edition.  1  vol.,  12mo.  Illustrated. 

'In  offering  to  the  American  public  a  reprint  of  a  work  on  the  Stenm  Engine  so  deservedly 
successful,  and  so  long  considered  standard,  the  Publishers  have  not  thought  it  necessary  that 
it  should  be  an  exact  copy  of  the  English  edition.  There  were  some  details  in  which  they 
thought  it  could  be  improved  and  better  adapted  to  the  use  of  American  Engineers.  On  this 
account,  the  size  of  the  page  has  been  increased  to  a  full  12mo,  to  admit  of  larger  illustrations, 
which,  in  the  English  edition,  are  often  on  too  small  a  scale;  and  some  of  the  illustrations 
themselves  have  been  supplied  by  others  equally  applicable,  more  recent,  and  to  us  more 
familiar  examples.  The  first  part  of  Chapter  XL,  devoted  in  the  English  edition  to  English 
portable  and  fixed  agricultural  engines,  in  this  edition  gives  place  entirely  to  illustrations 
from  American  practice,  of  steam  engines  as  applied  to  different  purposes,  and  of  appliances 
and  machines  necessary  to  them.  But  with  the  exception  of  some  of  the  illustrations  and  the 
description  of  them,  and  the  correction  of  a  few  typographical  errors,  this  edition  is  a  faithful 
transcript  of  the  latest  English  edition." 

Life  of  Edward  Livingston, 

Mayor  of  the  City  of  New  York ;  Member  of  Congress ;  Senator  of  the  United 
States ;  Secretary  of  State ;  Minister  to  France ;  Author  of  a,  System  of 
Penal  Law  for  Louisiana ;  Member  of  the  Institute  of  France,  etc.  By 
CHARLES  H.  HUNT,  with  an  Introduction  by  GEORGE  BANCROFT.  1  vol., 
8vo. 

"  One  of  the  purest  of  statesmen  and  the  most  genial  of  men,  was  Edward  Livingston, 
whose  career  is  presented  in  this  volume.  ***** 

"The  author  of  this  volume  has  done  the  country  a  service.  He  has  given  ns  in  a  becom 
ing  form  an  appropriate  memorial  of  one  whom  succeeding  generations  will  be  proud  to  name 
as  an  American  jurist  and  statesman." — Esangelist, 


D.  APPLETON  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


History  of  the  Komans    under   the 

Empire.    By  CHARLES  MERIVALE,  B.  D.,  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College. 
7  vols.,  small  Svo.     Handsomely  printed  on  tinted  paper. 

CONTENTS : 

Vols.  I.  and  II. — Comprising  the  History  to  the  Fall  of  Julius  Caesar. 
Vol.  III. — To  the  Establishment  of  the  Monarchy  by  Augustus. 
Vols.  IV.  and  V.-*-From  Augustus  to  Claudius,  B.  c.  27  to  A.  D.  54. 
Vol.  VI. — From  the  Reign  of  Nero,  A.  D.  64,  to  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  70. 
Vol.  VII. — From  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  70,  to  the  Death  of  M. 
Aurelius. 

This  valuable  work  terminates  at  the  point  where  the  narrative  of  Gibbon  commences. 

"  When  we  enter  on  a  more  searching  criticism  of  the  two  writers,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  Merivale  has  as  firm  a  grasp  of  his  subject  as  Gibbon,  and  that  his  work  is 
characterized  by  a  greater  freedom  from  prej  udice,  and  a  sounder  philosophy. 

"This  History  must  always  stand  as  a  splendid  monument  of  his  learning, 
his  candor,  and  his  vigorous  grasp  of  intellect.  Though  he  is  in  some  respects  inferior  to 
Macaulay  and  Grote,  he  must  still  be  classed  with  them,  as  one  of  the  second  great  trium 
virate  of  English  historians."— North  American  Reviek,  April,  1863. 


Thirty  Poems. 


By  WM.  CDLLAN  BRYANT,  1  volume,  12mo. 


"  No  English  poet  surpasses  him  in  knowledge  of  nature,  and  but  few  are  his  equals.  He 
is  better  than  Cowper  and  Thomson  in  their  special  walks  of  poetry,  and  the  equal  of  Wads- 
worth,  that  great  high  priest  of  nature."—  The  World. 


Hints  to  Riflemen. 


By  H.  W.  S.  CLEVELAND.     1  vol.,  12mo.    Illustrated  with  numerous  Designs 

of  Rifles  and  Rifle  Practice. 

u  I  offer  these  hints  as  the  contribution  of  an  old  sportsman,  and  if  I  succeed  in  any  degree 
in  exciting  an  interest  in  the  subject,  my  end  will  be  accomplished,  even  if  the  future  inves 
tigations  of  those  who  are  thus  attracted  should  prove  any  of  my  opinions  *o  be  erroneous."— 
Extract  from  Preface. 


Queen  Mab. 


A  new  Novel.    By  JULIA  KAVANAGH.     1  vol.,  12mo. 

u  No  English  novelist  of  the  present  day  ought  to  hold,  we  think,  a  higher  rank  in  her  own 
peculiar  walk  of  literature  than  Miss  Kavanagh.  There  is  a  freshness  of  originality  about  all 
her  works,  and  an  individual  character  stamped  on  each, — there  is,  moreover,  a  unity  of 
thought  and  feeling,  a  harmony,  BO  to  speak,  pervading  each  separate  work,  that  plainly 
speaks  original  genius,  while  the  womanly  grace  of  her  etchings  of  character,  is  a  marvel 
of  artistic  excellence."—  Tablet. 

My  Cave  Life  in  Vicksburg. 

By  a  Lady.     1  vol.,  12mo. 

u  Altogether  we  commend  the  book  as  worth  more  than  almost  any  dozen  of  books  on  the  war 
we  have  lately  noticed. " 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


E  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


FORM  NO.  DD6, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


GENERAL  LIBRARY -U.C.  BERKELEY 


BQOOflblMfl3 


224086 


liililli 


fit  If  V/i 

mm 


